User talk:FayssalF/Archive AC

Help needed

Can you please take a look at this incident. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic scripts

Thanks so much for adding those Arabic scripts! We (WP Arab World) were just trying to think of as many users who are able to provide them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Suspected_sock_puppets/Klaksonn

Hi. There might be a new related case of suspected sockpuppetry. I'm not sure what Klaksonn case was about, so if You have some knowledge about situation, please comment at [1]. Cheers.M0RD00R (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can help me

Hello, I am new here. Your page is lovely, can you teach me how to make one like yours? Sincerely, Akiro. Akiro H (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait until you come back :). I really hope to work with you in the future. Best regards, Akiro. Akiro H (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SSP#User:Klaksonn

Saw you were involved in this. Can it be closed. Is there actions still to be taken? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check with FayssalF, as he was doing most of the work. As far as I'm concerned though, yes it can be closed. --El on ka 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((pasted from Elonka's page))... — Rlevse • Talk • 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Medals

im not sure if i informed you of this before or not, but i have created a couple of Medals for the Arab world project... i think we really need Arab medals, since all other projects have their own created Medals, and we have none...

one last thing, what is the policy for giving people medals?? i mean, can anyone just grant people Medals that have been created?? how does this thing work, why, when, how and on what should i give people medals?

what do ou think?? you can fix them if you wish.. cheers

--Arab League User (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Is there a way to remove the black background from the second medal? There's no policy but introducing it to WP:ARAB is common practice. You may need to discuss it on the project's talk page there with other participants. Awarding medals have to be announced there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Jajouka→ Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka

Dear Sevest can yopu take your protect off this page so it's name can be moved to the original title. There was faulty logic and histrionics at work when the page was originally cahnged to the name of the controversial re-issue. The original title was the title intended by the producer Brian Jones and the artist. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM/FT2/KL

[2] leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are marked as active. Although I don't see any contribs by you over the weekend, or even recently... I urge you to get active. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research about military history and its coordinators

There is an ongoing research about military history and its coordinators. I thought you might be interested. The result will be published by the project.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice Wandalstouring. I am already in contact with the researcher. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg

Salam brother,

Do you think fair use tag is acceptable for this picture?--Seyyed(t-c) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

Hi Fayssal, how are you doing?

Following an Arbcom debate and in view of the message at the top of the talk page, is it just me, or are some "pro-skeptical" editors being very tiresome and difficult to respond to. On A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism I've had similar problems with edits that I see as barely controversial at all. User:Science Apologist really knows how to wind me up. If you could just take a quick look and suggest ways forward, give me some feedback on my own editing, all that, I'd be really grateful. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for recusal

FYI:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_recusal_in_Request_to_amend_prior_case:Digwuren

Martintg (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin. Please see my response there. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi FayssaIF, a user has violated WP:NPA by claiming that an article is in violation of NPOV because I edited the article and claims that the article is becoming a propaganda blog. This is a very serious allegation and hinders my ability to contribute to the article. Your comment is needed at WP:SLR. The article is in question is Tamil Eelam and it is believed to be one of the main aspiration of the current civil war in sri lanka and as such is a part of SLDR (thought this article was not tagged because it was overlooked). Watchdogb (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been over 24 hours and there has not been a single evidence given to support these allegations against me. Can you please take some steps so that I can be left to contribute rather than be attacked ? Please and Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Photo 135.jpg

They want to delete the oven again Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fadesa.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fadesa.gif. 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) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan

There seems to be a block on name change or perhaps it is only happening to me? [[3]] is whet comes up when I try to change it to the original and correct title "Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka" Can you let me know what the problem is. I requested unprotect on the correct page but they said it was unprotected . Is there some error in the code?.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEcho

Thanks for letting me know. I have nothing to add there. It does remind me of the theory of another admin (I hope I am quoting him correctly), that sockpuppetteers should be blocked indef (though I know that view is outside the mainstream). My study of GreenEcho's contribution history suggested to me that he would be spending most of his remaining career at ANI. Though I probably lean toward a strict response to editors that I sense to be POV-warriors. I perceived mostly wiki-lawyering in his response to you, rather than a sincere desire to reform, or an admission that anything had been wrong before. During the edit war that I checked out, the people on the other side of GreenEcho appeared sincerely cooperative, but he was just beating his drum. (Though I have no idea who was right on the underlying issues). EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- sorry I wasn't online for the critical period of this. I was following the discussion though. I am concerned about the WP:SOCK policy page after this discussion. I feel strongly that this business about legitimate alternate accounts to keep areas separate needs some firm guidance from the policy, and there should be a low absolute maximum (say, 3 or 4) of accounts actually specified somewhere there. The idea that this guy has that he can have, basically, one account per article is simply wrong. Yes, he's segregating areas but the sheer number of them, and the lack of any good reason to segregate (say) Lebanese from Pakistan editing makes this an illegitimate use. But there could be an issue with the policy because it doesn't make this clear. It might also be worth saying in the policy that the use of segregation needs to be explainable and justifiable... in other words, more than just "the rules say I can do it." Mango juice^talk 14:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford

[4] Here is the myspace link you were looking for. 161.11.120.59 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bedford. Could you please add it to your case so other members of the ArbCom can see it? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not Bedford. I am an interested party that, due to fear of retaliation from him, wishes to keep my username out of this. 161.11.120.59 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We are aware of the privacy issues and therefore we are here to make sure eveyone is safe but "fearing retaliation from [Bedford]" is a bit exaggerated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I've had a couple of issues in the past where I've disagreed with one of his contributions. Instead of agreeing to disagree, he went and dissected my contributions. While I am an interested party in dealing with him, I really do feel that anonymity is necessary when doing anything that involves him. 161.11.120.59 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. All we hope is to have a cool place where everyone enjoys a great time editing while sharing their knowledge/research/work. But since you feel uncomfortable with expressing your views at ease (something which hurts), then I'd have no reason not to accept your input. I'd already accepted it of course. Anyway, my advice... for you and Bedford alike, be relaxed :)

IP

Hi - I understand from your comment here that you've linked 74.94.99.17 (talk) with a named account and are concerned about a violation of WP:SOCK. Since this IP has been active in the disputes surrounding the Obama pages (largely in a flame-fanning and commenting-at-AN/I manner), I just wanted to ask if you could follow up to ensure this is resolved appropriately (I assume you do not want to disclose the named account due to privacy issues at this time). There are already plenty of socks, suspicious IP's, and SPA's contributing to the dispute. Thanks for looking into it. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got it right MastCell. And that has been my clear message, not only to the particular IP and its owner but to all users using IPs on that topic (in theory I'd mean everywhere). And yes, I'll be keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for looking into it. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing Neutrality

I was hoping you could give me a hand... Enforcing Neutrality, formerly GreenEcho, is giving me grief. He's started up again with following my edits and reverting them, most recently by reverting vandalism (!) on depictions of the Imaams. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Clarification: using IP, he went against consensus on talk to unilaterally remove all images from Shi'a imams, then he logged in as E.N. to revert, claiming there was "ongoing discussion" (see my talk page). I will not revert against him because he harasses me when I do. He is a serious pain in my, um, 3ilm. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it, emilyzilch. I posted the incident here. En Ne talk 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FayssalF. I was totally unaware that Enforcing Neutrality == Klaksonn. The latter was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and incivility on Fatimah. Enforcing Neutrality popped up a while ago, again with the same incivility (as you can see on the talk page and here) and the same tendentious agenda.[5] I now realise I had afforded this user a measure of good faith that he perhaps may not have warranted in dealing with his tendentious, unencyclopedic insertions.

I had pursued mediation on that same basis of good faith towards a seemingly new editor, and had I known that he was Klaksonn then I simply wouldn't have tolerated the barrage of personal attacks and the continued violation of core content policies. Now I learn that he wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the article in the first place- and even though he was, he still hasn't improved his behaviour. That isn't a good sign, and I feel I must ask how much leniency we should extend to editors who continually and unrepentantly disrupt in spite of the clemency they are shown. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Itaqallah, I am not Klaksonn. And this is a very low way of getting rid of the mediation, which I pursued, not you. En Ne talk 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I pursued mediation. You can't engage in it by yourself. Even without checkuser evidence, the same sort of behaviour on the same article does suggest you are connected to User:Klaksonn. Even now,[6] you still don't feel the need to behave in a civil manner. Do you realise that I have been editing that article and have had it watchlisted since well before you even created your account? ^_^ ITAQALLAH 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I have read your note at the bottom of the RFAR for the Barack Obama article. Hope it isn't addressed to me. I do not use sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Was it addressed to me? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WorkerBee74. In general, and as the note says, "[the note] is a message to all involved parties". In particular, it is addressed to the operator of 74.94.99.17 (talk · contribs). The idea is to stop some users from letting other users believe they are different people while operating in the same topic -- because that is against policy. I hope you agree with me. And, if you believe you are not the owner of that IP then you don't have to worry at all. I'd believe you. I hope you agree with me here as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

--Dralansun (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford's request to ArbCom

Hi, I'm basically going to say the same thing as I did to Charles Matthews when he changed his vote from Accept to Reject: Please reconsider. Please hear the case. Why not? What harm is there in simply hearing the arguments through the governance process that Wikipedia has set up: ArbCom? I'm not saying anything about Bedford's actions, or trying to influence your decision w.r.t. that. I'm just trying to say, please hear the case, so that this is an ArbCom decision, not just a Jimmy Wales decision. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your message. I'll also refer you to the deadline issue which myself privately noted afterwards. Anyway, I still have no problem in "hearing the case" and my talk page and e-mail are open for just that. But are you sure it would not be a waste of time? Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think going through the process is a waste of time, even if ArbCom comes to exactly the same conclusion as Mr. Wales. He said himself that he wants his "special position here" to "fade over time" [7]. Doesn't accepting this request and going through the formal process help in that regard? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be another matter for another Request for clarification concerning Jimmy Wales (talk · contribs)'s roles. That could be done anytime though much has been said and clarified. That said, I am still open to hear the case (related to user:Bedford) whether here or via e-mail. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have let Bedford know. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, a small request if you agree. To be polite, I felt that I should tell Mr. Wales that I'm indirectly talking about him here and at Charles Matthews' talk page, however, I cannot edit Jimbo Wales' talk page. Is there any chance you could add a note to the Bedford section of that page on my behalf? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very polite to inform users about things releted to them but I believe that there's no need to inform him of this. It is something which goes beyond that as explained above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEcho/Klaksonn sockpuppetry continues

Hi, the IP address 77.42.134.185 appears to have picked up where the banned sockpuppet GreenEcho/Klaksonn left off, trying to start edit wars.[8] They had been blocked indefinitely (note the almost identical IP addresses). What's the best course of action here? Would it be possible for you to block this IP address as well? Thanks. ← George^[talk] 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP related to the above seems to have popped up: 218.213.226.210. Regards, ITAQALLAH 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back again as User:Monkaa... called me a "cunt", and appears to be wikistalking me now. He's just revert warring all over the place... reverting my edits, your reverts of his edits, and reverting another admins', Jayjg's, edits. I don't suppose that we can just get a site ban on 72.42.*.*? ← George^[talk] 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. The account has just been blocked indefinitely for block evasion. I've ust run a CU myself and I can confirm it. Feel free to revert all the edits made by this account. However, for the time being, I cannot range block. We are keeping an eye for now until it becomes a real problem. -- -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks again. I'll try to keep my eyes open for further disruptive editing by the editor using other accounts. They don't seem to stay away very long, and their area or editing overlaps with some of the articles I watch, so sometimes I notice their return pretty quickly. This time I waited to tell someone that the user was back on a new account until they started acting in a disruptive manner again, but in the future I'll try to let someone know sooner. Cheers. ← George^[talk] 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your advise. Another anonymous user has taken up Klaksonn/GreenEcho/Monkaa/77.42.*.*'s edits here. The IP address appears to be from a Hilton Hotel in Kentucky, not Lebanon, and it's not in the range of IPs that Klaksonn used, so I'm not sure if it's the same user (traveling or via proxy), or another editor. I'm betting a CU won't match the IP to the user either way, since it's a hotel IP address, but who knows. I don't want to violate 3RR, so should I just wait a while before reverting? ← George^[talk] 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but there's been an escalation in the vandalism & disruption. Somehow Klakson/GreenEcho/Monkaa/77.42.*.* has figured out how to access my old account. I used to be User:George.Saliba, but I usurped the name User:George in May 2007. The vandal has re-registered or broken into my old account, and started vandalizing pages. I've changed my old user page to not redirect to my new one, so that others aren't confused thinking that I was the one vandalizing. I really hope something can be done about this though. ← George^[talk] 12:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem has indef-blocked the George.Saliba account, so this should be OK now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I understand the concern, but was there any need to delete that information on my talk page? Despite the method he said it, or the fact he is banned, he did have a point that I am now addressing on the proper talk page. --Enzuru 02:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without a further reason... We don't deal with banned users for a couple of reasons. You can communicate off-wiki if you want. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

Hello FayssalF,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.
You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.
Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.

Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

Jajouka/Joujouka topic ban

I saw you had posted this to WP:AN but it's already been archived, otherwise I would weigh in on that page. Given the COI on the part of these two users, and that they are effectively single-purpose accounts, and the length of time this has transpired, is there some reason we don't simply ban the two accounts? I, for one, certainly appreciate your dealing with this for as long as you did. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and indefinitely blocked both users as I fail to see that they are constructively participating in Wikipedia. See also: [9]. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of List of Naruto episodes

Hello, on November 13, 2006, you semiprotected List of Naruto episodes, citing an edit war but not indicating an expiry time. The article has been semiprotected ever since, and following a discussion on its talk page, I would like to request that you unprotect it. Thanks in advance for yourr time! —Dino guy 1000 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response to this! —Dino guy 1000 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys from Baghdad High

Just s quick question, do the quotes in the Lede really need citing? They are all taken from webpages that are used as sources in the ==Reception== section. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really and you are totally right. I forgot, for no reason, that I was editing the lead section. I've just removed it. I'll try to review the article soon. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Nadir

Hi Fayssal,

Since the early May, there is a continuing dispute on this page. I think the case is somewhat clear here. 1. The User:Accredited is unwilling to acknowledge that websites like "islam.pakistanway.com" or mirror pages of wikipedia on other pages are unreliable sources. 2. The user is engaging in WP:OR. He claims Stillman says something that he actually doesn't say. I have quoted Stillman word by word in the article but he still reverts me. And now, he reverts me because he expects me to first argue with him and refute his theory in the talk page if it is incorrect. I would appreciate if you could take a look at Talk:Banu_Nadir#Beginning_a_new_section (and the section above it if you had time - though that may not be necessary). The dif showing the difference between the two versions that are now under dispute can be found here [10]. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayssal, since I know you must be very busy, I am not going to bother you. I'll ask others about this. Cheers, --AAA765 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INFO-STRANGE FORM OF SOCKPUPPETING

I have notice on Wikipedia the ability of a Mr. Paul Barlow to take over a account that is not his during discussion. Paul then masquerades as the individual whose account he takes over. This would indicate three possibilities. 1. collusion among the owner of the account and Paul 2. Super Admin designation 3. hacking This to me is a form of sockpuppeting. Is Wikipedia aware of this? Is this legal? Is there a lot of hacking on Wikipedia? Is there a super admin designation at Wikipedia that I am not aware of ? My name is omniposcent and I have been banned for sockpuppeting. I have only used my sockpuppet for discussion in response to Mr. Paul Barlow when he engages in this. My proof is the writing style. I am quite active in the discussion page of Afrocentrism.

Request for informal mediation

Hi Fayssal. I'd like to requeast your help on a dispute with another user on a specific page. The page is 99Bryant G. Wood]] and the user is Chronic2.

The page has turned into an edit war, which is not something I want. Chronic2 is a new user, and a bit headstrong. Relations are now so poisoned that he won't listen to me and so I'm asking you to take a dispassionate look and suggest what should be done. I expect you to criticise me as much anyone else involved, of course - your impartiality is the reason I'm putting this message on your page.

Background: Bryant Wood is an archaeologist involved in Biblical subjects. He's also a Creationist (not an insult - he describes himself as such, and his credentials as a working archaeologist are as good as anyone else's), and something of a star in the eyes of those who wish to build a case for the Bible's claim to be a record of events.

Wood's major achievement has been a redating of Biblical Jericho from the 1550s BC - the generally accepted date, but one which doesn't fit the Biblical chronology for its destruction by Joshua - to around 1400, a date which does. He did this by closely examining the classical excavation by Kathleen Kenyon, which forms the basis of the consensus. His analysis was quite cogent and couldn't be simply dismissed, but it was of course controversial - and bear in mind what I said above about Wood's qualifications as an archaeologist being as good as anyone's. Anyway, there was a controversy around 1990, when Wood published his critique of Kenyon. Then in 1995 some new C14 dates were produced, and Wood's dating was shown to be impossible. The consensus has now returned to Kenyon's dates.

Now for my dispute with Chronic2: He wants to add material which I regard as irrelevant and tendentious. What's being sought is your views on that.

In a nutshell, Chronic2 is adding material which, to my mind, relates to a dispute over the conflict between C14 dates for Aegean/Near Eastern ancient history (including Egypt), and the traditional chronology determined by archaeologists using such means as changes in pottery types over centuries, changes in art styles, dynastic records, and a whole host of other things. This dispute is real and ongoing - and it's important, within it's own parameters. But I don't think the article on Brant Wood is the place for it. That's the irrelevant part.

As for the tendentious side, Chronic2 quotes one side only of the dispute over the impact of C14 dates on ME chronology. He quotes just one scholar (Manfred Beitak) who champions the traditionalists, and ignores the other side completely. Then he introduces the conclusion that "ultimately the question of the date of the destruction of Jericho should be discussed based on the more traditional stratigraphic studies that rely heavily on pottery types." This, of course, is entirely his own view.

I would be grateful if you could offer us some way forward on this in terms of the policy guidelines we use on Wikipedia. If you don't want to get involved I'll understand, but frankly I'm tired of this edit-warring and want to find a way to end it.PiCo (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Fayssal: I gotta problem and I thought that you, as a Supreme Mandarin, could help me out ;) But don't panic: it is more like a formal thing that you can solve with a touch ;) It is about AfD. There is an article I nominated, but I just can't make it appear correct at the least. Would you please look here to see what did I do wrong[11]? It must be some formal step that I didnt take correctly. Would you please review it and tell me what is it wrong? as you see, at that noticeboard, all the articles nominated appear with its title as a link, while mine is untitled, but showing directly the text that is supposed to be linked... If you spot what did I do wrong, I'll fix it...you know I am not used to wikipedia's manor corridors ;) Hope you have the time to give me a fast tip with this. Either way, have a good weekend. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, while I was writing this, a good heart helped me out already! So that is fixed. Thanks anyway. Best regards. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

al- and Al-

I think there is a difference between Al- and al- in the translitteration from Arab to English (or any other language with latine alphabet).
Am I right ? If so, could you explain me the difference ?
Thank you in advance, Ceedjee (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definite article "al-" is always written in lower case (unless beginning a sentence), and a hyphen separates it from the following word. I sometimes make mistakes as in "Oum Al Banin" in contrast with "Oum al-Banin." In fact, I still need to fix many Arabic titles. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer.

But do you mean Al- is not used ?

Are you sure ? I thought eg there is : Al-Aqsa which requires Al-

But maybe it is not the definite article ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nb:we can go on the discussion on your talk page (I put it in my followings).

It is always written in lower case unless... beginning a sentence.

Mosque of al-Aqsa vs. Al-Aqsa Mosque. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ! Thank you very much.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteindonut

FYI [12]. Ceedjee (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your last tucker max edit

Could you describe a little further what your last edit on Tucker Max was about? What is disambiguation in the context of the change you did? Didn't you just split gonzo short stories into two differnt links to other articles in WP? Im only asking this technical question because Im trying to learn about WP, I dont have any problem with it. I want to learn how to help clean up articles. With respect aharon42 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it is just a guideline and it is not something set on stones. Here it is. Some disambiguation pages have a primary topic (i.e. Hollywood, Casablanca), while others don't (i.e. Yamaha, Alien, Clinton). We do presume that our readers are not necessarily well informed and that is why they come here to read our articles. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want accurately, quickly and easily... So avoiding a disambiguation can surely help our readers get directly to the article we want them to read - depending on the context of course.

What is disambiguation in the context of the change you did? In our case, "Gonzo" may refer to different things; it could be Gonzo the Mechanical Bastard (GMB), Gonzo the Great (GG) as it could be Gonzo journalism (GJ). Indeed, that is not something easy for our readers. Tucker's article states that "[Tucker] chronicles his drunken, sexual adventures...". This means that the reader could get confused (GMB, GG or GJ). As editors, our task is to clear this up for our readers. As editors, we do understood that it refers to GJ. I could be wrong. You know the subject and you can correct me if I am wrong. So that would prevent the fact that some readers would get confused and not be able to understand which "Gonzo" we are talking about. This is not a problem when a reader comes directly from off-wiki looking for "Gonzo" because he'll clear that up h/self probably (in contrast with being linked via a wiki article). Please let me know if this is confusing.

Didn't you just split gonzo short stories into two differnt links to other articles in WP? It depends... We can have something like Gonzo short stories. I'd not recommend that as Gonzo journalism is not necessarily based on short stories. So it is appropriate that they are separated.

P.S. I am a fan of Gonzo and my facebook profile has an image of his name "Hunter S. Thompson". What a world. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteindonut

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comment from admin notice board, he removed my two comments from two different places, this is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever.« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteindonut Sock Puppet?

Why do you think Saxphonemn is an Einstein puppet? Saxphonemn's English is pretty poor from what I remember, while Einstein's is not. Both are over the top, but otherwise, I din't think they seem similar. Of course, I do not have the tools to check.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sposer, I don't think but they are.

Many Wikipedia sockpuppets haven't been similar at all. "I cann wroten bud anglis forevere and gut away with it."

I am really sorry Sposer, I am not going to waste another 2 days to argue about this and I don't think I am permitted to discuss the privacy of anyone here by giving you the details of the Check. Some other CheckUser operator may help by reviewing the case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can answer this: When you said "by proxy" did you mean that you believe this is meatpuppetry? Or did you mean that Saxphonemn edited from an open proxy IP? Mango juice^talk 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing Saxophonemn's block earlier, I interpreted the proxy point to mean that the editor was using proxies to edit as the sock; I'd like clarification as well, actually. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy IP... using exactly the same user agent version "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1". The rest is known to everyone (voting the same stuff, editing the same articles, targetting the same users user:CJCurrie, appearing at the same period, the history of user:Einsteindonut's sockpuppeting). If someone prefers to call that meatpuppetry, then go ahead. We must not forget that the I-P related articles are under restrictions. I suggest you read the whole thread at the AN/I for all details. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me - thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't looking for private info. Was he using same IP address? Stuff like that. I look at many of the pages he does too. Lots of folks see what CJCurrie's edits. I personally do not believe he is using a sockpuppet, not that I think Einstein or Sax add very much to Wiki. Sad that he is blocked and other admins are using incomplete info to defend it. Then again, if you tell me same IP address, I will believe you. You have far more info than I do.Sposer (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies Sposer. We have been having sockpuppets editing from 2 separate continents, let alone dozens from different locations within a country. In case there are doubts, we refer to the user agent. In this case, both accounts from 2 different location used the very same user agent. It is posted above. This means that both accounts allegedly editing from different locations edited using the same version of Mozilla (5.0), the same OS (Macintosh, the same processor (Intel Mac OS X 10 5 4), the same web kit (AppleWebKit/525.18), etc....

Still doubting? Ok, this is a very interesting case study of sophisticated sockpuppetry which can be taught at schools of sockpuppeting. Note that user:Klaksonn and Co. (not forgetting user:Embargo) was a prolific pro-Hizbollah dedicated sockpuppet and POV pusher. Sposer, please allow me to describe myself as a "vieja puta" in this business (apologies for the dirty language). If you want to read more about my adventures with socks you can consult Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed as well. Sri lanka-LTTE area is much more quiet after my raid. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fayssal, thanks for the explanation. Certainly an inexact science. I have firefox and IE on most of my PC's, but I will take your word for it. I do not know enough to be sure he is doing this, but you guys have to do the best you can!Sposer (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is an inexact science. There's no doubt about that. I have 4 different browsers and use 3 for wikipedia because IE sucks (i am a Microsoft guy but not an IE one). I use the 3 exchangingly (when one gets frozen - because of the multiple tabs I get opened, I use another). I don't know why I am telling you this but well...I totally appreciate your questions. It is a pleasure Sposer. Anytime. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice

A block of yours has been posted for discussion at WP:AN#Please review this block. — Satori Son 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Satori. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for ArbCom concerning a topic ban

I request that you please review your vote on this request for ArbCom, as the user in question has stated many times that it isn't this particular ban of this particular topic is what upsets him, it is the way it was done, which has been explained in the case.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ejhg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ejhg.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on Proposed decision - Alastair Haines

This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least 2 arbitrators - either yourself, Charles Matthews, FT2, Jdforrester, Matthew Brown (Morven), Thebainer or Yellow Monkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just trimmed one of your comments

I just trimmed one of your comments - think you'll understand. Cheers, Ben Aveling 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoC request

Hi, FayssalF. I've read the thread twice, and only discovered how profoundly ignorant I am about what computers do and how they work through routers and IPs. My computer broke down finally some 10 days ago and I've bought, and work from, a completely new one, and, looking at this case, can only wonder if the change makes me out to be I(S)P-wise an editor with a different electronic profile than the one I had with the old computer!?

I don't think my opinion would be anything more than that, on the page, and therefore have withheld commenting. Since the evidence is extremely technical, on these things I tend to take administrators at their word, esp. when 3 of proven experience, caution and balance like yourself, Lar and Alison concur. The only thing that worries me is that Tiamut noted NoC had way back posted a protest against an antisemitic remark, so his presumed attack on Einsteindonut is queer. I tend to go overboard and call for permanent bans when racist or antisemitic remarks are dropped, so I instinctively backed your decision, even though I couldn't see much in Einsteindonut's evidence (as opposed to the larger environment you controlled). I also didn't comment because I think your overall interventions on this have shown in their cautious balance something that is often lacking in administrative judgements, a psychological acumen into the otherwise tacit politics that appear to be going on.

You guys have to do a tremendous amount of hard labour at the digital coalface because of bad user habits, and I can only hope that, as Carcaroth and some others suggest, one works out a method to make people who want to edit wiki use a single account. This blather because I feel a bit stupid and embarrassed that I can't reply adequately to your request on the relevant page: it requires a mastery of technical details I lack. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks Nishidani. Fair enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]