Jump to content

User talk:Nsaum75/Archives/2010/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spanish Wikipedia

We could contact the Wikiproject Estados Unidos and see if the members are interested in forming a daughter project. How does that sound? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think an admin is allowed to delete his or her own previous userpages. I'm not sure what the process is for a non-admin. You could ask the Wikipedia_talk:User_page talk page to see what the process is. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel.
For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Nsaum: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved this discussion here

SD, edits such as this one that you made today, and your trying to rush along discussions -- whether on article talk pages or in AE/ANI discussions -- does not sit well with the vast majority of editors. Instead of pushing a specific nationalistic point of view at articles, you might be better served by slowing down and collaborating with others. In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

nsaum75, you are only trying to throw more dirt at me and create more drama to get me banned from Israeli articles the same way you tried this during the arbitration case running to Cactus and showing what I had previously posted in my userboxes. Falafel is not part of the arbitration case or anywhere close to it, it is not a biography article, and I have followed my 1 rv restriction at that article. I have used the talkpage many times at falafel and you haven't responded to my questions, you have pushed a nationalistic pov by adding two pictures from Israel (majority of pictures at the page) so you should follow your own advise and start collaborating with me at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I thought it was relevant in regards to CactusWriter's comments about your editing style at numerous places. Additionally, you continually push a Syrian POV at the expense of other nationalities or countries be it Israel or Egypt or Turkey...and like I said "In general, its easier to create and expand than it is to restrict or remove." Additionally, you might want to read up on WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WIKILAWYERING.
Finally, the only person who has the power to get you banned from an article is you. If you feel you are editing with good faith in a fair, balanced and constructive manner, then you should not have anything to worry about. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, I do not believe I have pushed any POV at the expense of any nation. I believe that I have followed what sources say and the majority viewpoint of the world. And I do believe that you yourself have pushed an Israeli POV, for example:"The international community considers it part of Israel"[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and with this, I am now leaving this discussion to end the drama you created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please read up on Wikilawyering. I'm also not seeing how creating an RfC and/or discussions on proposed changes or improving articles by adding more photos is pushing a Israeli POV...especially since I'm not repeatedly involved in edit wars or content disputes with with other editors at most of the articles I edit...but maybe some other editors will chime in and give additional opinions, as sometimes its hard to see the errors of our own ways... but personally, I think my long and diverse edit history speaks for itself. Anyhow... Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Voladores of Papantla

I got a Q... I expanded Voladores de Papantla but it doesnt quite make 5x. It was listed as a stub before I got to it and the second section (on San Miguel de Allende) is pretty much a repeat of the first paragraph. Do you think the powers that be will make an exception?Thelmadatter (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Falafel

Thanks so much for the comment on my photography. I enjoy it, although I know I have much to learn. About the article itself, I realize you are looking for ways to deflect attention from the "Israel problem," but I wonder if adding a weird recipe for shrimp-based falafel is the way to do it...LOL Somehow, I'm not sure that this particular version is in any way notable or worthy of inclusion. That could lead to a zillion more recipes on ball-shaped fried foods that are clearly not felafel (as in the section that I deleted) --Gilabrand (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nsaum user, you like review comment made by gilabrand user and remove you unrelated adding about fish and shrimp ball. Makacris make comment on felafel page that expose it as not variation of felafel but just shrimp ball that be masquerade as felafel by magazine. thanksyou. Ani medjool (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oaxaca

Hola, he puesto una sugerencia en la discusión de Oaxaca, ¿está usted de acuerdo? o tiene otra sugerencia, yo pienso que debemos esperar a que otra persona haga un comentario en el mismo sentido, pero si usted piensa que basta con nosotros dos, por mi está bien. De antemano gracias y disculpe mi rudimentario inglés en la pasada intervención.

I think he is a Joe job

The way he is using some of my past phrasing that I have used: "the days of Israeli domination"

This has happened before. With several accounts showing up and trying to make it look like its me. Like this one for example:[8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Hindu Temple

Beautiful, never knew it was there. Thanks for the suggestion. I wonder why it is located near Stafford and not more central? Postoak (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this look alright?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lebanese_hummus_can.JPG --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but you have released this photo in the public domain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hyssop_zaatar.jpg --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Galveston County Library System

I will go ahead and place the original revision here: User:Nsaum75/Galveston County Library System :) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the map, thanks in advance! If the airport indeed falls in the boundaries, the article needs to state such. Also El Al needs to be updated with the actual municipality noted. In addition the El Al and airport articles in Hebrew need to be checked too. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TCH Photo

IMO, the lighting of the first image appears more natural down at street level in front of the building and also in the left background in front of the St. Lukes building. The TCH building looks lighter in the second image. Both look good, but I would pick the first one. Postoak (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the first image - more of the color was kept in it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I made the changes. I friggin wish something could be done about the degradation of quality and colour by Wiki software. Then again, I guess people don't come to Wiki for its photographic quality. :-) Cheers! --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 05:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so, but the photographs you've provided Wikipedia are top quality! Postoak (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos in Israel

This This is not my talk page, and I outright reject the idea that these photos must be in the article. Yes, there are two ways to look at it; we could either expand an already long and comprehensive article just so the photos Gilabrand wants can fit in the article (and I should add most of these were removed not solely because of space), or we could remove photos to accommodate the wealth of information already there. I'm going to choose the latter. Sorry. I don't know where you and Gilabrand get the idea that the more photos there are, the better, but it's blatantly misguided. If you so desperately think the pictures should be in the article, especially those pictures that don't fit currently, then you -- not me -- should be the one spending time expanding the article. I don't think they're important enough to waste my time accommodating them. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have linked to the wrong section on Gila Brand's talk page, but regardless, you and Gila were having a discussion on the issue, so I felt it was an appropriate place to respond. Furthermore, if you feel that expanding and improving Wikipedia articles -- via photos, additional text or revised sections etc. -- is a "waste" of your time, then perhaps you're on the wrong website. Regards. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not expanding and improving the article; that was adding pictures to an article with abandon. On the article talk page, I quoted a part of image guidelines that asks that people consider space and relevance when adding images. Gilabrand did not do that, and you're encouraging her not to. As I said, if you think we're supposed to add images of questionable relevance -- and I enumerated their deficiencies on Gilabrand's talk page -- then add filler content to an article to accommodate them, you don't know what you're talking about. Your "wrong website" remark means nothing to me; you and Gilabrand don't even understand that pictures are supposed to illustrate text of the article, not the other way around, so I don't think your opinion on this matter is worth much. -- tariqabjotu 09:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for enumerating my point on why you may be on the wrong website. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 16:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Troll

No worries. I assumed.Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsaum75/Archives/2010/February&oldid=1074666802"