User talk:FayssalF/Archive AF

National parks of Morocco

Hi, been doing work to update our site's coverage of African geography. You're probably the best person to come to with this: the template for national parks of Morocco has a redlink for Ayachi National Park, but it's getting zero unique returns at Google and Google Books. Could this be an error? Durova^Charge! 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova. Well, in fact Jbel Ayachi is part of the Eastern High Atlas parc established in 2004. That includes other mountains such as Masker, Aberdouz, Msedrit etc in the provinces of Khenifra and Errachidia. You probably couldn't find it in Google since most of the information are whether in Arabic or French.

This is the official portal. At both the left and right sides of the page, you'll see the 10 national parks of Morocco —there aren't 14 as the template says. I'll try to help out. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Template corrected. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Question re Topic ban

if a user is under a topic ban should they be editing on any of the pages talk or main that he is banned from?

I ask this because a topic banned user was subsequently banned from attempting to frame a user also on a topic ban. he was let back on Wiki to participate in resolution but is now violating the topic ban with unsigned post Re can you please please please crack the whip here. There is a process in operation. No one involved is supposed to be editing talk or main pages as per the Topic ban,[1]

A re ban is now in order User:BKLisenbee I refrain from bringing this up at ANI just yet awaiting your opinion. thanksCatapla (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends whether the topic ban includes talk pages or not. In most cases, people are not restricted to use talk pages unless they are disruptive but in your (both) case I see no need for talk pages since we got /JK page. I've also left a note to your longish post at /JK; it is not the apporpriate time for it. We've taken the one-by-one article approach. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks I moved the post up to Catalpa concerns (just to park it there for the moment)

I think you should absolutely make the topic ban include all the talk pages as I was under the impression it did. Let's try and keep all this where it can be somewhat followed by us all. I for one am not following a lot of the edits there as there have been so many changes, additions and redactions of original points and info by BKL. It is a bit like jumping on quicksand. I think it is only fair to restrict comment by either user on talk pages until this process has concluded Catapla (talk)

I really don't see the need for it. Restrictions are generally prescribed to avoid disruption. I really doubt BKLisenbee did it in purpose. I've left him a note and he'd get it.

As for the changes, they are documented at the JK page. I don't miss anyone important. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you do, you have let lots of material of a personal nature about living people sit there and it is there still. I for one must insist if that is permissible that all this is confined to one page. It is impossible to follow BKlisenee's continuous edits on one page without spliilage .

You have also allowed anon edits to stand on pages under discussion. I have not bothered to chance done the IPs or ask for chectk users but enough is enough. if this is ever going to reach a conclusin . One page , One dicussion no side bars please4. That is only fair. It was you who unblocked BKL so please take responsibility for his editing and his behaviourCatapla (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Catalpa, you whether concentrate on the essential or drop it all. There is no IP discussion that I can see. There's no IP edits to the articles that I can see. I am concentrating my efforts on JK page and would not waste my time chasing IPs at talk pages; IPs that would have no particular influence whatsoever in the JK page process or the editing. I am not listening to any IP and as long as there's no disruption then why would I waste my energies? I've wasted enough!!! I'd better keep my energies for the essential. We are not in a kindergarten. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Catapla (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Moors

Hello There,

I recieved your messages and I really do not understand your tone or what you feel I should do. It is most certain that I am not a wiki “bot” nor am I trying to impose as one, that would be virtually impossible; My user name has a more significant meaning to me than you assume. if my name was already in use or resembled another Wiki would not allow it. Either I am writing to you about the revert of my edit I did not remove anything from the article I simply stated that it need improvement and more reliable sources which is true, so what is the harm in that? Botsystem (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for the tone. Not intended but I had left an earlier message here when I reverted your mass-tagging without using the talk page to discuss the concerns you got to warrant {{unreliable}}. Also, there are 23 different references so I didn't know what you mean by {{Improvereferences}}. You also left {{citecheck}} but you haven't said which ones at the article talk page.

I am not trying to impose something on you which is mine; I am remiding you of policy (check the link I left with my message at your talk page) which stipulates the following:

Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts.

What I did was reminding you of requesting a username change so you can present your concerns at the article talk page so other editors discuss them and see if they are warranted. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask me or any other administrator. And sorry for the tone again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest my friend there is no way I am going to change my name, however I looked at the policy on "bot" as you said and the rule on "bot" is to not have it at the END of you name, Wiki does not prohibit you from having it and the beginning. iFayssalF I've been to the article talk page and I have seen that many others have brought up the same concerns I have, and some have even listed sources but their concerns were not resolved. A large amount of the “facts” are totally off. I see that you are Moroccan; I myself am of Algerian descendent. As an African I am sure you are aware that when it comes to populations we have the most diverse in the world. The article claim the moors were “not negro” . That statement is wrong and invalid because I can find an Afro centric source that claim they were nothing but blacks and I can also find a Eurocentric source that claim they only European. You see if the article is allowed to state that then it should also say the moors were not Arab or Berber because truth is the Moors were not one particular race, but rather a racially mixed group with included "negro" blood. Another thing that I noticed is that the so called references in the article are not even valid Primary source. They are secondary sources taken from other places. In fact the 1st so called source is a paper written by a university student. The other “sources” list the name of books but yet the pages were the refs. came from are not listed.

Many sections especially the Overview need citations and it also need to be extened. I do not want to break "3RR" so I will not revert it back today, but I have to say that I am going to do it again because that article needs a ton of work. Ma'as salaam Botsystem (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The nature of my intervention was administrative and has nothing to do with content issues, Botsystem. You could have just removed the student pdf instead of just tagging and say why and that would be fine! I may partially agree with you in terms of content but Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). As you may know, there has been some edit warring going on there for some time now and the talk page includes discussions about what you are just referring to so you could be easily accused of sockpuppeting. And3RR is not an entitlement; you could be easily blocked especially that you are explicitly talking about your reverting strategies. Please, you whether participate in the discussions at the talk page or refrain from tagging. I am sure that would be much more helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, the reason I brought up 3RR was because when I created my account the “welcome page” had several links, rules etc, and 3RR was one of them so naturally I thought I was going to be blocked if I did more than 3 edits. Anyway like I said before “I’ve been to the article talk page and I have seen that many others have brought up the same concerns I have, and some have even listed sources but their concerns were not resolved” Going on the talk page was the very 1st thing I did, and I didn’t see anything being done to resolve issues. Some editors were pretty much fighting with each other. as you mentioned about the edit warring. The reason why I didn’t remove the students paper was because I did not want to seem I was tampering with the article, I just wanted to draw attention to the lack of validity. That is why I am going to place the tag. By bring letting people know it need to be fixed others will join in and contribute to helping the article. I will see about raising some issues in the talk page anyway, I really appreciated your advice. Shukran gazillan Botsystem (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please let me know if you need any help. Just prioritize discussions. Thanks and sorry for my tone which was not intended at all to intimidate you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable saying?

I recalled this one....Talk:Fes,_Morocco#Old_moroccan_saying - is it famous in morocco? Or just some anglophone urban myth...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

MZM Rfar

A revision of your votes on Fof 4 variations would be appreciated.

On a very separate note, a few weeks after the email you replied to me with in January, I'd sent a reply - just to confirm receipt. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FoF: I'll have a look, thanks. E-mail: yes, Jan 22? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon user 89.130.28.68 behaviour

Today when I woke up, I found a whole lot of personal attacks from anon user 89.130.28.68 against me.

Messages such as:

• "THIS USER IS SUCH A STUPID AND BIASED WIKIPEDIA EDITOR. SHOULD BE BANNED FOREVER!" on my user page.
• A blanking of my talk-page whith the following message "buaagh i'm sick only reading this user please..remove him from wiki!!!!".
• "that is fucking stupid and haves no sense!!!! That is a person with various nationalities NOT A NATIONALITY OF SPAIN . ONLY MAURICE27 CAN SAY THAT!" in the Nationalities of Spain article.
• "WTF!!! IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT MAURICE27 IS STILL EDITING THIS ARTICLE FROM A SUCH BIASED AND STUPID POV!!!!!!" in the Catalonia article. (NOTICE that I hadn't edit that article since January 17, 2009

I ask you if you can do anything to stop this kind of behaviour with a ban from a user who has been attacking me since April 2, 2007 and who I'm pretty sure is a sockpuppet from User:Martorell due to him removing this text [2] from my user page. Thanks for your help. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week. I left a note at Joanot's talk page. I see that you removed that reference to him from your userpage. Please, do not do it again.

I really don't see the need of the Nationalities of Spain disambiguation page. You have merely 2 articles to disambuig but that can be done by having 1 primary topic with a disambiguation link at the top of the main article. I have no idea about the verifiability of the claim but it seems like original research which creates more problems than it solves. Plus, of course, the fact that the page was created to be used as a redirect and not a disambig and it has been suggested that the articles be merged. Please try to fix that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF. I've not edited on this wikipedia since February 2009. This suspect on me has no good reason to be counted. Mainly when I've only edited on the userpage of his when he was attacking me, and not viceversa. Altough of that, it's true that the IP belongs to a range of my Internet provider. So, it's not strange for me that this user are always having problems with users from the same geographical area than me. Have a nice day. Salut! --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry our recent attempt to improve Rise of the Ottoman Empire was short lived. I have limited internet access lately so I haven't had quite as much time to edit articles as I did. When I get more internet access I will hopefully return to actively editing the mainspace. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Round

Over at the Ryulong ArbCom discussion, there has been use of the term "round". Perhaps we should change to a word that wouldn't seem so much like a boxing match? I just find it a tad odd. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I once compared workshops to rings... not of boxing but for vale tudo (MMA). But yes, I agree... so, let's change it! What do you suggest?

P.S. I suggest 'phase'. What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "phase" makes me think of some kind of sci-fi show. I don't know why. :) "Section" wouldn't have the right "progression" feel. "Part" may have the "incomplete" feel to it and suggest a progression. There are other words - session, stage, etc. We could just keep the term "round" and include a fight to the death at the end. That may liven things up around here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Stage' seems right. I'll update it later on today. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Spanish and Arabic queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's a house for you! Houses somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and appreciated Acalamari. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar System

I have nominated Solar system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I should have done this MUCH earlier! First time - learning & living! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NAMIRI S.A.

I have been told you may be acquainted with the language in which this article is written. If so, could you give me some idea as to what it is saying, and whether it could reasonably qualify as a real article? You might wish to respond either on that page itself or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Calling all who can read French. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moors Edit & Talk

Faysal old man, I wanted to get your advice on how to proceed with this bizarre interaction on the Moor Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moors#Discussion - it seems to me fairly clear that someone is socking, but also seems more interested in heaping abuse than engaging in a constructive discussion. I am not sure where this even should be reported. (collounsbury (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Email

I have responded to your email inquiries. I hope I've clarified things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence#Evidence received by FayssalF

Do you want me to clean the above section up a bit? Remove the user:X part in the sentences, change Bisanz to Mbisanz, etc. KnightLago (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure. That's a bad habit of mine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, diff of changes here. KnightLago (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks KnightLago. I've just added a few questions at the Workshop page. Could you please notify Ryulong, Mythdon, MBisanz and Risker? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for MBisanz, Mythdon has already replied, and I notified both Risker and Ryulong on IRC. KnightLago (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd better have a notification on-wiki. Thanks KnightLago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you want me to notify everybody on Wiki as well? Ryulong just responded to your questions. And I do not think Risker will be a problem. But let me know. KnightLago (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC evidence

Regarding the Ryulong case, if you do get permission to make the logs public, please note that I do not want the logs about my Youtube account public as I do not want the information stated on that account to be stated on Wikipedia. —Mythdon t/c 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. There's nothing whatsoever in the logs which refer to any private information about you and/or your off-wiki activities. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to post that log anyway if Ryulong gives you permission to post them? —Mythdon t/c 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If Ryulong agrees after having a look at them then I'll post them. He now has the two logs. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When did he get them? —Mythdon t/c 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This question is irrelevant. We are still having time before moving forward two days from now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what you mean by "moving forward"? I don't understand what you mean by it. —Mythdon t/c 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Schedule. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It let me know that you just made a reply to me there, and I just replied to your reply there. Please respond as soon as possible. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

moroccan arabic

Hoi FayssalF,

I have a question. I don't know if you are familiar with the Moroccan rap artist Salah Edin, but he has made an Arabic album and track called "Horr". What is it spelled like in Arabic and is used only in Moroccan Arabic (since I can't find a Standard Arabic translation at wikt:pure)? Does it have more meaning other than "pure"? Thank you Mallerd (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Mallerd. Long time no see! Yes, it may also mean 'free' in the sense of 'he is free to do something' or 'liberated'. And, no, I've never heard of him! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, long time no see ;) I thank you, although I still have a question: could you write it down in the Arabic alphabet for me? If you do, I can add it to wiktionary :) Once again, thanks for you help. Mallerd (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In two letters: حر. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can you check up حر.? Is it correct the way it is? I can't read Arabic :P I first didn't notive the dot is a punctuation mark. Funny isn't it? ;) bye Mallerd (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I now see the dot and it's my mistake that i didn't notice it :( It's correct without the dot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong Proposed Decision

Are you the Arbitrator who will post the draft for the Ryulong Proposed Decision? If so, could you please clarify as to why it's taking so long for you to do so? —Mythdon t/c 06:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, you have been asking more than enough questions which have clear answers already known to all participants. 7 May is 7 May! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, it is now May 7th noon time where I am. It is not May 8th. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going by the Wikipedia time which is May 7, but I was wondering why it wasn't posted a few hours previously. In just a few minutes according to Wikipedia's time, it will be midnight May 8. I was asking you in order to remind you about it. Maybe I should have asked you hours later. —Mythdon t/c 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have not asked me at all since I am well aware of the time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, but try to post it or get someone else to post it at the necessary but quick enough time. Thank you. —Mythdon t/c 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing just that and it was already over when you posted your last comment above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Are thoses proposals created by the Arbitration Committee? —Mythdon t/c 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

: ) Like 2 principles, 2 FoFs and half a remedy for every single arbitrator? What do you think? ArbCom members work as a team, the same way editors are supposed to do.

And why would that matter when the important thing is not who made them but how and who would vote supporting them? The response is here (check the drafter column). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Links posted

I have just posted the links to the AfD's to the ArbCom PD talk page. See here. —Mythdon t/c 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check them later on and let the arbs aware of them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mythdon t/c 13:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Posible vandalism at Catalan people Article

Hi,

I'm sorry to continue bothering you with the same matters, but following a very polite dispute about the factual accuracy of the lead paragraph of this article in the talk-page, two annon users 81.37.144.56 and 83.56.176.180 (but I really believe it is a single one user sockpuppeting User:Martorell) are constantly removing references without a single explanation as can be seen in the Revision History.

I asked the admins to block the article to annon users for a while, but I would ask you to to run a CU whenever you have time. Because if it really is user Martorell (and I'm sure it is him as he hasn't edited since march, 6th, this will go for ever untill someone bans him. Thanks for your help. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. Toddst1 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb nom thingy!

You state that - "I can only support desysopping if there's a trend and/or when an admin can't or doesn't show signs that they would desist. I don't see any of that here. Admonishment coupled with a restriction is sufficient to prevent any repeated and similar behavior". However, this is not the first time that BHG has block me when she was in the middle of a dispute. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... I missed hitting the 'Full block log' button at the bottom of your block log. Anyway, the motion I put to vote is kind of lenient to all three of you allowing all of you a chance to desist and change your behavior. So any revisiting of that particular motion would have worse implication for all of you. What do you think? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can big enough to be able to take what sanctions or otherwise that I deserve as long all editors are treated with an equal hand.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll do what is needed. By the way, do you have any opinions regarding the alternative motion? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its best if I leave what are or arent the best motions to put forward up to those how know best! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I checked out your page & contrib. & like whatchu doing man; by the way am from morocco too! I hope u can response for this: how can I translate Drive in Arabic? knowing that it ain't mentioned in any arabic ref.

i'll be happy for a response/cooperation in the futur; Thank you! --Ω (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Discjjockey. I like your Ω :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zawya

A tag has been placed on Zawya, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ZooFari 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

Since I have not yet received a response from the other arbitrators on the Proposed Decision talk page, I am asking you these two questions regarding the proposal.

1. If I were to suddenly become inactive while the mentorship applies, would there be a motion to restart or pause the time of the mentorship? Let's just say that I become inactive following the ruling at anytime until a certain period of time has passed, would there be a motion to pause or restart the time?
2. If I were to violate the mentorship, after the Arbitration Enforcement block is over, would the mentorship restart or pause during the block? Would there be any motions to do that?

I am curious as to what the answers are. You are the arbitrator who posted the draft, so I think you're the best choice to ask if not the whole Arbitration Committee. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply as I've been busy.

1. As with any mentorship, people may take breaks. We won't pause it of course unless you avoid the mentorship by taking a year long wiki-break. The point here is to see improvements in your inteactions with the community and a soft approach toward policies and guidelines. What ArbCom can do is to pass a motion to extend the mentorship if you fail to reach those objectives within a year.
2. I believe you mean 'violating the restrictions attached to the mentorship'. Well, in case that happens, mentorship will follow its course in a normal way. There'll be nothing to pause or restart. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How long would the mentorship last before I could appeal, if I do appeal anyway? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a one year mentorship. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So there's no appeal? Is it final to the extent of "you shall be mentored without the possibility of appeal"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of someone appealing a mentorship since that is already a lenient --and I must say appropriate-- remedy given what's been going on with your behavior. Do you believe you are able to overcome all the behavioral problems without the help of a mentorship or what? No single arbitrator believes that and therefore I see no single reason to talk about an appeal procedure. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention on appealing, but if another editor thinks it should be appealed, they can request ammendment. Right now, I'm wondering if I'll continue editing Wikipedia after the case closes. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let them try to appeal first. Why the bureaucracy? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I want to happen, to let them try to appeal first. As for the bureaucracy, I was just curious. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me also say that who I'd want to see request to amend it, I'd want it to be someone who has not been involved in the case in any way, shape or form, whether they were actually involved in the dispute or not (e.g. Ryulong, Hersfold, Synergy, Tiptoety, Ncmvocalist). I'd want an impartial editor to request amendment to avoid biased and unfair judgment. It's not whether or not I'd want it amended, but if it does get amended sometime in the future, I would only want an impartial editor to request amendment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

please note

my latest addition to [3]. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the response. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">?

Hey FayssalF, what's the deal with the "(Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">" in (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)"> (Ctrl-click)">these edits? Paul August ☎ 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am having the same question. I've just asked the clerks to figure it out. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

it's a bug in WikEd. It's been fixed and all that's left to do now is the cleanup. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate account use

Hi Fayssal. Over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Some data I've noted that, through no fault of your own - people just neglected to ask you - you haven't AFAIK given an explicit response to the question "have you ever edited enwiki under another username". For the sake of completeness and propriety, would you mind doing so? Happy‑melon 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Happy-melon. I've just answered here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arb Req:Collect

Thank you for taking the time to read the entire RfC and for providing some guidance to those still paying attention to the ArbReq. Since the ArgbReq was closed just now I wonder about your request to a clerk asking for a response to Editor:Fact_checker's 2 questions. The fact that Collect has chosen to make minimal responses is not surprising. Further, let me assure you that there is NO plot or organized cabal that is "after" Collect, as he vehemently claims...over and over again without a scintilla of proof (because there is none). While I ignore Collect as much as I can, we do run into each other. I usually leave rather edit and give him any grounds for a stalking claim. I regret getting involved with Collect and I would rather just move on. But, that seems to be one of his tactics. And, I like it here too much. --Buster7 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will ask a clerk to leave a note at Collect's talk page. The clerk edited Wikipedia before reading the e-mail I had sent. The case [has] had little chances to get accepted and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy I believe a note at Collect's talk page is sufficient. I would not ask for a mandatory response as that would be moot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@User:FaysslF. To date I have seen no note "at Collect's talk page". I'm sure you are busy and only place this here as a gentle reminder. It would be appreciated by more editors than you might think.--Buster7 (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you've just missed it, Buster7. It was done on May 29. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. Sorry to bother you. --Buster7 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

1RR in RFAR - Macedonia 2 remedies

I'm pretty sure that Rlevse used that phrase to define the scope of the topic ban. For example, one of the proposed remedies reads:

SQRT5P1D2 is topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.

I don't think that was intended to mean that SQRT5P1D2 is being placed under 1RR; it is simply an easy way to define the bounds of the topic ban. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot J.delanoy. I believe you are right. I'll get back to my votes and update them accordingly later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazigh Man and my talk page

I`m not entirely sure why you have left a message to Amazigh Man on my talk page, as you don't seem to have left a message on his, be it in response to something I said to him or otherwise. Elostirion (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have simply confused his talk page with yours. Was that inappropriate? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I was merely a bit confused. Elostirion (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Double vote on "Macedonia 2"

Hi FayssalF, you seem to have accidentally double voted on Macedonia 2, please see the "Implementation notes". Thanks, Paul August ☎ 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

It's importnat YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wedad Lootah

Hi there, I was wondering if you could find the Arabic spelling of Wedad Lootah's name? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is وداد لوطه. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Close?

[4] rootology (C)(T) 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, endorse or otherwise, what are your thoughts on my second proposal? rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify

Nobody pays me for farting around oncontributing to Wikipedia. I might make some money if ever anyone could find a foolproof scheme to reimburse me for not editing, but until that day... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ham noah

Hello, Please look at something over here Ham_(son_of_Noah) I stumbled across a dispute and I edited the page

[[5]]

then this editor comes and change it to this.

[[6]]

the only problem is that just below in the same section, that EXPLANATION about the soil is ALREADY clearly given and expanded as

'Nevertheless, since Khem (meaning black) was normally used to describe the fertile soils by the Nile, it was sometimes used as an epithet for Min, as the god of fertility. Since Khem was also an Egyptian name for Egypt (precisely because it described the soil of the Nile valley), there is also an association with Ham, who represented the forefather of the north-east African nations including Egypt."

so there is no need (I do not even think they have read the article they are editing) I have said it numerous times that all they are doing is creating repetitions because the explaniation is already give. And they all stop, yet this one particular editor Catiline63 in clear violation of 3RR continues to do it and and revert my edits when I restore the article. Thecityone (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of argument on the Ham discussion page regarding the meaning of Kemet and Kmt: i.e. does it mean "black", "black land", "land of black" or "land of blacks". As the argument is heated, I think it is best to have as many references as possible - and, moreover, to quote those sources - to prevent further edit warring. (BTW, all agree on "black land".) I also feel that it would be best to mention these references as soon as the issue of the 'dark Nile soil' etymology of Kemet/Kmt is raised: i.e. to keep them where they are now. Repetition can easily be avoided just by editing down the later section mentioned by Thecityone. Perhaps to something like Nevertheless, since Khem/Km ("black") was normally used to describe the fertile soils by the Nile, it was sometimes used as an epithet for Min, the god of fertility. Regards. Catiline63 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note the editor initially said section by 'caliborn' then changed later changed it to MY name. That is why I asked him what he was talking about..in my earlier response below. Thecityone (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What section did this ‘caliborn’ mention? I am the one who brought up that section. I am not concerned about your dispute with other people. What concerns me is that you continue to repeatedly add information that is already in the article, and revert my edits when I restore it. All the editors including the Administrator stopped when I mentioned this, yet you continue to add unnecessary information like you have done now making it you 9th edit on the page with a 24hr period. I am going to restore the article it would be wise if you stopped vandalizing Thecityone (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all started on the hannibal page on false claims for afrocentricism, because of the meaning "black land" but as note the explanation is alreadt given the editor catiline has no point.76.118.238.21 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you have been asked to comment on this but essentially this dispute started, as has been said, on the Hannibal page, because an editor (76.118.238.21, who also goes by the name user:TruHeir) repeatedly attempted to delete an image of Hannibal on the grounds that it was inauthentic in some way. This is an ancient Roman bust thought to depict him. Of course it may or may not resemble him, but it is the only known image. TruHeir was and remains the only editor who wanted to suppress this image and who persisted in the face of all opposition. There seemed to be no explanation for this, so I suggested that the unstated reason was that the bust was European-looking. The "Africanness" of Hannibal is a popular subject of internet debate [7] [8] and is linked to African-American popular culture [9]. Looking at TruHeir's other edits confirmed my suspicions, since I saw he had edited articles to alter text to give the popular Afrocentrist claim that the Egyptian name for their country, "Kemet", meant "land of the blacks". I altered it to the "black land", which is the standard translation, initiating an edit war (my first edit). Throughout this, TruHeir, Caliborn and Thecityone revert blindly, leaving the article in an incoherent state. Their over-exitable and sometimes unitelligable comments do not help coherent debate and their persistent denials about their actual motivations make debate virtually impossible, since what they say is contradicted by what they do. I have strong suspicions that these "three" editors are one and the same, or at least are closely linked, since their style of writing is so similar. Thecityone's assertions at the beginning of this section are simply false. It took a long time for he and his confreres to even admit the meaning of Kemet, and the current text is not "creating repetitions because the explaniation is already give". It explains and then expands on the explanation, but of course it could be edited. Nevertheless, it is better to have more than fewer references, so their deletion seems odd, and it is better to include explanations earlier than later. However, if you look at Thecityone's reverts you will see that he restores versions with garbled text, inappropriate tags and other oddities. He writes, "I do not even think they have read the article they are editing." I think that comment applies rather more to him. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page pending looking at the matter tomorrow. It's late over here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, even though not one of the 3 editors involved in the dispute over the authenticity of sources over Hannibal’s picture talked about race or appearance. You appeared out of thin air and said it was over his race. The same claim you mentioned here [[10]], yet again none of the editors involved said it was about race or how the image was depicted. Now again you come on this talk page with the same race bound afrocentric theory that you seem to be the only talking about.

To make matters worse you have added web links about “The "Africanness" of Hannibal is a popular subject of internet debate [11] [12] and is linked to African-American popular culture [13]” To this man’s talk page, Dude what is your deal? Like honestly WTF? Who cares about some random internet debates about the africaness of hannibal that has nothing to do with Wikipedia let alone that dispute. Paul B What is your purpose in you bringing up these things. It’s like you are purposely trying to turn this into something about Afrocentrism because you know you are at fault. FayssalF I apologize because your talk page is not a public forum. Take a look at Hannibal and the talk page and Ham_(son_of_Noah) and its talk page. So you can discern what is going on of your own. 76.118.238.21 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You care, but you are feigning ignorance. There is no other possible explanation for your edits. Paul B (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To everyone, let's calm down please and wait until we review the situation at ease. Paul, what you've just said can be constructed as a personal attack. Please avoid it in the future. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you care to check the relevant talk page you will see streams of genuinely abusive remarks about 'retards' etc, none of which come from me. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don’t worry I am not fazed by his personal attacks. In the Hannibal page an Admin Named Quadell said “ Is it relevant? Yes. Is it reliable? Not really. Should it be included in the article? Of course. Should mention of its dubious accuracy be made? I think so.“ He doesn’t think the picture should be remove, but he is agreeing that it is not reliable and that it is OK to talk and question its authenticity. So doing that does not qualify me to be to be in some afrocentric race conspiracy. Unless you consider him to be part of it too. It is so weird how he brought up random things from other places and tried to fabricate something that never had anything to do with what we were discussing. I apologize again Fayssal I know your page is not a public forum, He is just getting on my nerves 76.118.238.21 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ghazali & accusations of intellectual dishonesty against Descartes

Greetings FayssaIF,

You reverted a change I made to the article on Ghazali and said you did so because it wasn't explained. Before setting up an account, on the talk page I noted that the claim that "some scholars" accuse Descartes of intellectual dishonesty had a footnote which actually led to an article that said no such thing. I have reworked the passage because Najm's article is interesting, but have deleted the unsubstantiated charge against Descartes. If there's a better way to proceed in such cases please let me know.

Thanks,

JPHayes (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)JPHayes

small edit war on LTTE

Hi,
could you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#re-revert_by_snowolf ? Thanks
Jasy jatere (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka

Hello fayssalF, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramadan Abdel Rehim Mansour

I am always confused by the complexities of Arabic names... The English sources I used for the article Ramadan Abdel Rehim Mansour call him as such, but the Arabic wiki article [14] calls him "رمضان عبدالرحيم منصور" (Ramadan Mansour Abdel Rahim, I think). Would you be able to tell me which one is correct? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be Rahim. Rehim is the Egyptian and unofficial version of Rahim. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I've noticed Egyptians speak a very localized version of Arabic... But since he is an Egyptian, shouldn't we write his name in the Egyptian way..? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of tricky. It is just the way it is pronounced in Egyptian, not the way it is written in Arabic as -both in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world- all official documents are written in classical Arabic. The problem doesn't exist when it comes to spelling his name in Arabic.

However, the problem appears when transliterating. Whatever is the case, that would depend on how his transliterated name appears on his passport (Egyptian passport#Languages) but since it is a hard to obtain that information the problem remains.

Ah! now, it appears that we are left with our magic solution; reliable sources :) I've just looked for an English-language Egyptian sources and I see that they are using Rehim. So, I believe that sorts it out :)

P.S. Fayssal/Fayçal is transliterated the French way but it is transliterated into English as Faisal in the Middle-East and beyond (Faisalabad). In the Middle-East, the exception being Lebanon and Syria where all names were transliterated into French although this link could give you a headache. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost request

Given the relative size of Judas' and 194x's statements, I'm not sure why you think Judas' retirement makes the case moot. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Països Catalans

Hi Fayssal. Since you know about this article, I thought you maybe could help now.

The thing is that a new user (to this article) came with a less than nice attitude, and stepped on quite a few toes. A request was filed about thiat [15] but then, in some 30hrs has been bot-archived without a single comment from any third party.

The result, so far, is that a few editors (Dúnadan, I presume Cnoguera and myself) are quite disappointed at this kind of things happening in highly imflammable articles, and not being even considered by the community, let alone punished. I really don't get what is going on with wikipedia. Is it because of Summer?

In all, I would really like you to pay a look into this and let us know your opinion. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Mountolive... I've been so busy in real life and now I am bit sick. So please bear with me. I've just left him a note at his talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon

Greetings. Though I don't log in often, I generally follow the articles central to Mythdon and Ryulong's arbitration case (those under WP:TOKU), and I noticed that you warned him a couple of days ago for his continuation of his disruptive habits after his arbitration case remedy. Yesterday, he has taken this a step further and filed a rather POINTy AFD on one such article. Discussion on his talk page has shown that he hasn't consulted his mentor for this, even though the new motions have yet to pass. What are your opinions on the matter? jgpTC 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:LogoRaja.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" 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) 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Power Rangers, and all that

I looked at some of the Power Rangers articles, added a cite to a reliable source (the BBC) to one and sent a spinoff of a spinoff article (Zords in Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive) to AFD. I've sent spinoff articles on other fictional subjects to AfD, usually when they were on subjects far from notable. Actually, I think most of the marginal Power Rangers articles have already been deleted.

Spinoff articles on fictional subjects are an ongoing problem. Without some pushback, Wikipedia would turn into Wookiepedia. (That's now on Wikia, of course, where the editorial standards are lower and fancruft is welcomed and monetized.) I've been doing a little of that for years, such as trimming back coverage of Star Wars comic books. At one point, fans were trying to put every minor character, planet, city, and spaceship mentioned in any Star Wars comic book into Wikipedia. That's been trimmed back to one article per comic book, a reasonable compromise.

It's really a notability and original research issue. Detailed articles on minor components of fictional works are almost always original research, unless the work itself is important enough to have generated book-length scholarly studies. Published reviews rarely go that deep. (Tolkien, yes. Harry Potter, yes. Power Rangers, probably not, although there is one critical book.)

I know it drives some of the fans nuts to have to actually cite their writing properly, but that's what Wikipedia requires. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"This and other remedies"

Because it feels that you've urged me to ask further (if any) questions during this request for clarification, I have posted a long list of other questions here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note this update. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your help may be needed

I am concerned that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 3 is going to generate much more heat than light. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. I've got no comment for the time being. I am just keeping an eye. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

G'day Fayssal

Hope you're good :-) - I must also take this opportunity to let you know that almost every time I see your username around the place, I get that catchy 80s electro tune in my head - your very own soundtrack :-)

What brought me here really though was your comment in the arbitration amendment thing that someone filed about 'my' case - it's all kind of a long time ago now, of course, but I did (and do) find the irony of JzG having run 'Cruftbane' as a long term sock rather delicious - the fact that Guy ran these two accounts all came out ages ago too, if you're a curious wiki-historian (or have present concerns, I guess?) then let me know if diff.s would be handy, otherwise I just felt it was worth clarifying what I was on about :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heheheh! I've heard that electro stuff thousands of times until I got tired of it because at the times when I was a kid there was no more than one national tv station over here and The tune was used abusively in a bunch of extremely boring emissions. Thanks for bringing in old memories.

Well, if you have really important diffs that show any violation of the sock policies then please let me know of course. Otherwise, I still believe that calling people with names other than their own usernames or names that they'd not consider ok is not appropriate. I hope you agree with me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do agree :-) - but not being very good at these multi-page threads - I've replied on my talk page :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood

Sorry, but by the time I calmd down from stressing out over the situation with Bain's comments, there was little I could do to remove it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 04:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to delete it and restore it without the comment - I really wouldn't mind my tiny bit of work with the censor pen going uncredited. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the OS tool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Adminsock policy

Regarding your statement on admisock policy I would to know which actions are considered forbidden ?yousaf465

WP:ADMIN covers the most (see WP:NOTPERFECT but also WP:ADMINABUSE for details). For concrete examples, please refer to Former administrators desysopped by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales or otherwise. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If and admin breaches 3 out 5 of these policies should be reported for it ? yousaf465

Admins are no different than non-admins. Indeed, they should follow stricter standards than those followed by non-admins —that is because the community trusted them for that job. Now, if an admin violates any policy then the first thing to be done is for someone to approach them in a friendly way at his talk page. In some cases, the issue gets resolved there. When that is not the case, one can whether ask for guidance at wp:AN from other admins since they are the ones who could help. One should always notify the admin in question at his talk page of the AN request. In many cases, the issue gets resolved there. Now, if there's a trend (making sure all wp:DR processes have been followed) then one can file a request for comment. In most cases, the issue gets sorted out there. If the trend is very alarming (after going through all the steps described) then one would file a request for arbitration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied by mail.yousaf465

Replied. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion on Flat Earth intro

I want your opinion on the introduction to flat earth. Specifically this part: "The Flat Earth Society accept or promote the Flat Earth hypothesis , despite the hypothesis having been long contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation and physics, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as fantasy." I feel that there are weasel words and NPOV issues here. However, in modern times, it is a fringe theory and Wikipedia states we don't have to be particularly neutral in tone with such theories. The Flat Earth Society also has its own article. The issue is currently being discussed on the talk page, but I wanted an opinion from an administrator or someone else who's well-informed about Wiki policy. - Cyborg Ninja 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Flutterman

Hi there; you have blocked this user as a disruptive sock. I have looked at his edits, which are fairly infrequent, and do not see disruption. Or any warning. Have you hit the right victim? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. My CU data shows that there's no technical doubt at all. Not a single one. Now, that the edits look constructive I'll unblock as long as the others remain blocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Flutterman

Thanks for the info; I did not appreciate that it was a CU block, and clearly would not argue against one. I was not exactly requesting an unblock, just querying what was to me unclear. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reynoboy

Came back as Reynoman (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)