User talk:SelfEvidentTruths

Welcome...

Hello, SelfEvidentTruths, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dewster^{_^*'_} 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Shortcut

I can see what you want but i do not think there is currently a shortcut that you can key in. The trouble is that a practically every citation is unique. I suppose you could create a java script for your monbook that when you clicked a button it would automatically place the current date as the retrieved XXXX but getting a java script that could find each individual citation from each source would be very complex. I mean you would have to somehow tell the java script to search the web for the quote. I am sure there is a copy right bot that automatically searches the web for newly added content to Wikipedia but I am not sure whether it runs on java script or what and which piece of the script if any you would use to search for the citations as you would have to specify the sentence phrase or quote you used. This could lead to much confusion as many quotes can be found on various websites and not specifically the one you found it on. I’m sorry if that doesn’t help but as I say the creation of such java script would require a lot of research and time investment. Dewster^{_^*'_} 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O right i see now. As i mention before to do this you would probably be better off creating a java script to place this template into the editing area. Perhaps you could make a request for said script to be created at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests or could have a go at creating your own. If you do decide to create your own script i would strongly advise reading the instruction manual Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Guide. Hope this helps =D Dewster^{_^*'_} 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magdi Allam

Hi. I just made some edits to Magdi Allam; I just thought you might want to know there will probably be quite a bit of activity on the article now, considering his conversion. There's been a bit of revisionist history (and a little vandalism) stuck in there by anonymous editors. Just a heads-up. ;) --Beth C. (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the article looks much better since your recent edits (much better than what I did!). I'll keep an eye on that part about his religion too; I kinda had a feeling that was going to turn into an issue. --Beth C. (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

Hi, If there is Wikipedia:Vandalism going on you can report here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism If you need page protection you can report here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I suggest you to make sure you have tried to talk with those who you disagree with before doing the above. best, Farmanesh (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqaba, Jordan

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aqaba, Jordan, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Aqaba. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have redirected Al Aqabah to Aqaba, since per the WP:MoS, article names should use the most common English spelling. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 10:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea the article you created was about a West Bank village! When I arrived at Al Aqabah, its text was an exact duplicate of Aqaba, the city in Jordan. So I redirected it to Aqaba, after realizing it already existed and that it was an exact copy. I thought it was strange for you to alert me to the creation of a new article that it a copy of one already existing here. I'm sorry. I never realized that other editors had intervened and that your text had been replaced with Aqaba, the town in Jordan, before I even got there. Anyway, I'm going to look into further right now and see how we can fix it. Thanks for you patience. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It probably was not a good idea to create a new page Aqaba, West Bank and copy paste the material there from where you originally placed it, because you lose the page edit history. What we should do is get an admin to delete that page and "Move" Al Aqabah (where your original edits are) to it. That's the first step. Okay with you? Tiamut^talk 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put all of them on watchlist and you do too. If there is a lot of vandalism, we can report it to WP:AIV and they can semi-protect the page or do whatever else may be necessary to stop it. I'm really sorry for all the confusion (and very good work on the article, now that I've finally seen it)! Tiamut^talk 17:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree that Aqaba should be a disambig page leading to Aqaba, West Bank and Aqaba, Jordan. Al Aqabah should also be a redirect to the disambig. My only concern is that the histories of the pages get fragmented the way that you have gone about doing it. We need to ask an admin for help. I think we should restoring the content originally at Aqaba and Al Aqabah and that these pages be moved to Aqaba, Jordan and Aqaba, West Bank respectively. Then Aqaba and Al Aqabah are deleted so that they can be turned into a disambig and redirect, respectively. Anyway, it's something pretty technical. I'll ask someone, okay? Tiamut^talk 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the eytmology of Aqaba, Northwest Semitic languages like Amorite, used a tri-consonantal root system like Arabic and Hebrew. In Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study on page 166, 'aqb is one the names used. Don't know what it means since I don't have access to the whole book. Interesting though. Tiamut^talk 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an article a while back called 'Aqqaba. I think it's the exact same town! We should probably merge the two. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in the ARIJ source I used it said the population was 73 and that Aqaba was a part of the "Tayasir cluster", which Tayasir and al-Malih. However, the PCBS says 'Aqqaba has a population of around 6,100. Perhaps this is a different Aqaba, meaning there is two Aqabas in the Tubas Governorate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

great job on J Street

Together your edits and those I made really converted that article into something pretty great -- or at least much better than it started at just two days ago. Again, Great job! --John Bahrain (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was supposed to do:

		The Original Barnstar
		For drastically improving the J Street article in short order. John Bahrain (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqaba name controversy

In my opinion, since Jordan's Aqaba is the more populous and well-known Aqaba, believe it should it should be redirected there. On the top of the page, it should say This is an article on the Jordanian city. For other uses, see Aqaba disambiguation. I also found out that there is two Aqabas in the Tubas Governorate of the West Bank! One with a population of 6,100, the other is a tiny village of about 100. There's also bound to be more Aqabas, so I'll be on the look-out. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are only two Aqabas, a hatnote at the top of both leading to the other might be okay. I prefer a disambig since there are more than two and they will likely be written about soon. Perhaps we can encourage the editors changing it to come to tha talk page before seeking admin help? Tiamut^talk 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but ...

A few days ago, I started a job with 14-hour workdays, six days a week, that will last at least two months, and possibly into September. Obviously, my wiki time has, and will be, much less copious over this period. Thanks for the offer for collaboration. I really do miss editing here, but this particular job is not one I could afford to pass up. Happy editing to you! Tiamut^talk 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith ...

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter of British Jews on 60th anniversary of Israel, you wrote:

Why is it that some editors on WP cannot stand to read about events or ideas concerning Israel which they find personally offensive, and cannot respect the fact there is an intense debate out there? Why concoct ridiculous reasons, using WP policies as excuses, to suppress truthful reporting? What was notable enough for millions of British readers of the Guardian and millions of Israeli readers of YNET and for the Israeli Embassy itself is not notable - in your own personal opinion - for WP readers? Who are you to be the gatekeepers? Why this intimidation and suppression? You are clearly motivated by ulterior motives.

Please keep in mind that this is an Articles for Deletion discussion. At any given time some article is being nominated for deletion, up to 100 times a day, for all kinds of reasons. Instead of worrying about why editors are motivated to delete certain articles, just focus on the content of the article and the reasons why it should be kept. In an ideal world, we would be able to get through this AfD without even being able to guess what the other participants in the discussion think of the State of Israel and its policies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia & POV

Hello, I was going to leave this alone, but I think it needs to be said. The accusations you make on your user page about certain users is false and goes against Wikipedia Guidelines. There is no conspiracy against you or the Pro-Palestinian viewpoint. I think the heart of this issue is your misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. For controversial subjects, like Israel and Palestine there needs to be checks in place. Everyone will have a point of view on a topic and it will always show in their editing, that is why Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Not one person alone writes the articles. You are a very angry person, whenever someone modifies an article you are working on, to neutralize the point of view, you yell and call them Vandals. No one was trying to silence you, only to make the article you are working on more encyclopedic. It is this refusal to work with other people who don't share your point of view which ultimately leads to you being the vandal. The reason your article on the Letter was deleted was just because it was not notable. For you to grossly exaggerate the importance of this letter is in itself a Point of View.

Best regards,Jason Schwartz (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli

You left a message for me a while back but I didn't get it in time. What happened, they deleted the page you were talking about? Acumensch (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:attempts to stifle truthful reporting on WP

Greetings my fellow Wikipedian!!!

I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to you. In the past I've been a very active wikipedian, but since November of 07 my activity has been very limited. I have not reviewed any policies or guidelines since my activity shot down, thus I'm not in a good position to comment. Also, I'm inactive here because of real life obligations. I'm regretful that I can't comment, but it wouldn't be of any value for me to comment at this point. Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello, I was looking at the edit history for Nicholas D. Kristof, and after seeing your very interesting User name turn up on a series of edits I decided to check out your User Page. That's a fine choice of quotations -- Douglas was certainly one of my "heros" when I was growing up.

It appears that we share the same frustration over the paucity of reporting in the US media on the full range of events and opinions in Israel. I thought you might be interested to know about a number of WikiProjects -- groups of editors collaborating in various subject areas -- that relate to that issue:

Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Troy Davis case. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try to be kinder in your edit summaries. Thanks! Barkeep^{Chat | $} 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

Please familiarize yourself with it a bit more before you continue editing. Per this diff, you re-add information that is not verifiable, well, Wikipedia operates on verifiability, please read WP:V. Secondly, in the edit summery, you state that you know about this particular piece of information because you apparently have notes regarding the case. This is also not allowed, please see the policy on no original research.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on your talk page. The names of judges in cases are most certainly verifiable. Any argument to the contrary merely shows ignorance of the US court system. Cheers! SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I will undo edits if they are original research, which is a policy here on wikipedia. Original research is simply not allowed. That said, I see how that the source you cited on my talk page lists the names. I idly wonder to myself if this was the same source I looked at when I removed the names from the document, as, at the time when I searched the article for the names given, as per source number forty, the query came up negative, therefore I wonder if there was a problem with my browser.

- Anyway, since the names are cited, they are not OR, and thus, per policy, they can remain.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Officer MacPhail infobox

Hi, I completely agree re the claims of innocence (actually I totally believe Troy's claims of actual innocence but of course I have to keep that out of my editing so I'm not biased), and if you think the infobox is inappropriate then by all means remove it - I just thought that it seemed that when anti-Troy Davis bias was removed from the article, some people were claiming it was being changed to be biased in his favour, so I thought giving equal credence to both Troy Davis and Mark MacPhail, at least as far as infoboxes go, might have helped to in small part dissolve the dispute - but again, if it isn't appropriate, and I completely understand what you're saying about the Mumia article - then I have nothing against it being removed.

p.s. do you think we could get the article semiprotected? I did suggest it for semiprotection awhile back to prevent bias either in favour or condemning Troy (although the bias I was encountering in the article was anti-Troy Davis).

Hopefully when we get the news in on the 11th Circuit's verdict then the article's neutrality will be a little more robust and if we can point out that 'Hey, the federal court said Troy Davis does/does not deserve a retrial', then hopefully bias will be reduced as there will be little place for it.

I did read awhile back that one death row inmate (in the 1970s I think) had about five full retrials before exoneration, and apparently at the 11th Circuit hearing the other day one of the judges told Justin Ewart (Troy Davis's lead defence attorney) that they could reappeal to SCOTUS due to the wording of the constitutionality claim.

Anyway, time will tell.

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - if the 11th Circuit allow a new habeas petition or grant cert for a hearing at the District Court (or whatever the 9 Dec hearing was about..), then this will almost certainly need semiprotection (to be honest I'm kinda surprised it wasn't protected ~23 Sept.; I guess if SCOTUS had granted cert then it would have been) because of the news coverage. It's been pretty widely covered already, on CNN, BBC (i.e. UK so it's been picked up outside the US), etc.

re the signature - yeah, you just choose 'raw signature' (in 'my preferences') and then code it up in wikitext - the code for mine is:

[[User:Jatkins|Josh Atkins]] <sup>([[User talk:Jatkins|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Jatkins|contribs]])</sup>

I'll try and keep an eye on bias from the sockpuppet 'HonorOfficer MacPhaill'. Thanks for notifying me. By the way, I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've done on the article - having a lawyer editing helps it to have a more formal tone and more precise description of appeals and stays. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the sockpuppet. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Troy Davis

You've twice now uploaded an image of Troy Davis on Commons that is copyright to the Georgia Department of Corrections. Regardless of where you find it on the Internet, the original source and copyright holder is the Georgia Department of Corrections. As such, it's not a free licensed image and can not be hosted on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of sockpuppetry,

As seen here. You say this user is a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet of whom, and what do you cite for your evidence? I ask for two reasons, the first is that such claims, without citation at least, can be considered disruption, the second, is, I believe you, especially because this editor appears to have been here before(citing policy, etc), and apparently has a point of view regarding just about the only topic he/she has been editing.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello, SelfEvidentTruths. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for you helping to get the HonourOfficerMcPhaill sockpuppet warned and ultimately banned (indefinitely); I hadn't noticed that user and the chances are they would have carried on if you didn't point it out. Hopefully now the article will not suffer again from the ridiculous vandalism that account was perpetrating, and hopefully it will serve as a warning to other people who think of vandalizing the article.

Thanks again. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Davis Case

While I realize it may be your beleif Troy Davis is innocent, please try to hold back those views when editing wikipedia. This is not an internet forum for you to debate the 11th Appeals Court and Supeme Court's descisions. It creates a very POV article. JakeH07 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi SelfEvidentTruths,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]