User talk:TopRank

Welcome!

Hello TopRank, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alai 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.

Hello. The article I've been looking at contains only one reference to objections within Iran, "Indeed, our correspondent adds, a commentary on Iranian radio said there was nothing new about what Mr Ahmadinejad had said. It complained that the West had overreacted because it wanted to smear Iran's image and to convince public opinion abroad that Teheran was seeking a nuclear weapon - something Iran has always denied."

Is there more there that I'm missing? Should I be looking at a different article? Thanks. IronDuke 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In Iran, supporters of Ahmadinejad have said that the West has misinterpreted or overreacted to his statements, at times intentionally, in order to smear Iran's image or divert attention away from the faults or responsibilities of the West." The sub article contains several statements by supporters of Ahmadinejad saying that various of MA's statements have been misinterpreted or overreacted to. I don't know what to say if you can't find any others. They are there. I hope you understand that this is a summary of the sub-article. That is where you will find statements that are summarized in this paragraph. You will be answered more quickly if you put your question into the discussion of the article instead of on my page.TopRank 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg

Jayjg, although he is an arbitrator, is free, if he chooses, to edit as an ordinary user. He is expected, when he does edit as an ordinary user, to conform to Wikipedia policies. As a member of the arbitration committee, unless it is requested by Jimbo or other Wikipedia leaders, we do not investigate and prosecute possible violations. That said, Jayjg has sometimes, in my opinion, engaged in somewhat biased editing, as have I. Please try to work it out with him by addressing him directly about your concerns. Fred Bauder 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of this edit [1] by you. Deleting a well known fact on the basis that there is no exact quote seems rather obtuse. Additionally I don't think the phrase "destruction of Israel" is particularly point of view, biased or inflammatory. As Q said, "Knowing humans as you do, Captain, would you want to be captured helpless by them?" [2]. Fred Bauder 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased translations

Hi TopRank. I'm interested in creating an article on the NYT's Tehran correspondent Nazila Fathi, who is responsible for a large number of the dubious translations of MA in recent years, including the "Holocaust myth" quote. Apparently though, others have tried to find out about this person with little luck ([3]). Do you have any interest in this effort?  JEREMY 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel

Hello TopRank, I am just letting you know that if you revert one more time on this article you will be in violation of the 3RR and could be blocked.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I should notify you that you have just broken the 3RR and could be blocked from editing if you do not self revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my count you have reverted at least as many times as I have. I also do not accept that rewriting a section, removing quotations that are contested, counts as a revert. TopRank 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it is clearly undoing someone else's edits, that is a revert. One of my reverts was spread out into two edits and were right after one another, thus they are considered one revert, so I have three reverts in 24 hours, so I cannot revert the article again today either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TopRank, you have violated 3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe admits to having violated 3RR. Should we both revert ourselves? If so, it would leave the article in its present form except that I've added links since. Will we both be blocked? To block me and not him would be an obvious application of POV. You may well have passed the 3RR threshold yourself. I don't think we all should be blocked. One third opinion has arrived, saying the article should stay as it is. You are the one proposing a major change to the article. I say until a consensus forms the major change should not be made. I also do not agree that the change that removed almost all of the quotations should count as a revert. It directly addressed the concerns you expressed in your edit summary, better than deleting the section outright did. You may disagree. I would have no problem with the arbitration committee resolving this if you recuse yourself. TopRank 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe admits to having done 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is what he has done. You, on the other hand, have done 4 reverts in about 5 hours. You have violated policy, Moshe has not. Please revert yourself before I am forced to report this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that both Moshe and you have made more than three changes that have undone another editors work in the last 24 hours. A third opinion has arrived that supports the page remaining as is. I have no problem with you submiting this to the arbitration committee if you recuse yourself. I would also accept the page being protected pending consensus forming. Wikipedia disputes should be solved by reaching for consensus. I think I have done that far more than you have. TopRank 20:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is a strict rule, and you can't bargain your way out of it; it's revert yourself or be blocked. And the Arbitration Committee doesn't deal with content disputes, as has been explained to you many times; please stop spamming them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg's edit

While I find, contrary to Jayjg, the quotes both relevant and interesting, I think his link to Wikiquote is more appropriate. Fred Bauder 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That speech, was by a mutual discussion made into a substantial part of the article summary on the main page. His removal of everything, including the Reuters response seems to me to have no basis. His removal of everything, a very major change in the article, without mentioning it in discussion, much less trying to reach a consensus first, was in my opinion very poor behavior. Do you disagree? TopRank 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section in question was just a near verbatim reproduction of an uninteresting speech by Ahmadinejad; as part of a cleanup of the article I removed it and explained clearly why in my edit summary. It was subsequently moved to Wikiquote. The removal has also been discussed at length on the Talk: page. None of that constitutes "Jayjg new revert war", and your spamming of this duplicate message on the Talk: page of every single ArbCom member is highly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, you had removed the section and reverted somebody who tried to restore the section before I put the issue into the discussion section. As you know, I subsequently added the information to wikiquote - not you or your co-reverter. None of us have anything to hide. The more people see your changes and read your defenses of them the better. TopRank 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I have nothing to "defend". You, on the other hand, increasingly do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[4] made on June 5 2006 (UTC) to Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. You seem to have got the wrong idea about the meaning of "revert". I suggest following the 3RR link to find out more... William M. Connolley 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Greetings! Please follow the usual dispute resolution process at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, whether the other party is an anon or an arbitrator. I will occasionally take requests to deal with something outside an arbcom case but I'm currently too short on time to be able to. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waterboard-3.jpg

--77.103.66.142 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)== Image:Name.ext listed for deletion == An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Name.ext, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 77.103.66.142 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) it's a painting, and also I needed it to truly understand the term. Do NOT delete![reply]