Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

Thanks for uploading Image:Josephmassad.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, what did you attempt to acomplish with this edit?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHamas&diff=154032196&oldid=153147498

What gain did you intend for there to be? The puppets are indefblocked, and cannot affect the article anymore? Outside of trying to impugn someone's reputation, I am unsure as to the net benefit. Correct me if I am mistaken. -- Avi 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that some of what has been going on has had a deleterious effect on the project. Editors with considerable amounts to contribute have been driven from topics (and perhaps the whole project) by obsessive edit-warring. I can't do much to bring back those who've left us completely, but I can do a modest amount of good by informing as many people as possible that the project can and does deal with sockpuppets, barring them from further participation in the encyclopedia. I can't see your objection - unless you think sockpuppets play some useful part and I'm being unnecessarily cruel to remind everyone of their humiliation. PalestineRemembered 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I may respectfully play devil's advocate, if you were to be banned for disruption and/or personal attacks (as was discussed recently), it would be proper for Isarig to post notice of the bloack/ban on article pages to help restore editor confidence in the project? Personally, I disagree with both. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. "Keeping score" ala the Hatfield-McCoy feud, in my opinion, only serves to further distance the collaborative spirit, not strengthen it. -- Avi 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of people have chosen to notify others of various allegations and blocks against me (all but one of them very disputed indeed). Perhaps you think such behaviour should get them blocked or mentored - in which case you should speak up.

In fact, you've pretty much done the same thing yourself, making it seem that I was some kind of problematic editor at the CSN on another user entirely, concerning proven sock-puppet behaviour such as I've never engaged in (despite great provocation to get me to sock-puppet!).

There was no point whatsoever in your doing that - whereas there is every reason for me to tell people if discussions have been scarred by sock-puppetry. PalestineRemembered 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response @ my talk, ty Eleland 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've exhausted my patience.

opened a new AN/I here and i would appreciate you, being the person who suggested it, mentioning that this is a case of failed mentorship. i'm not pushing for a total ban.. that is not my place to decide; but considering the number of blatant breaches after the sanctions noticeboard and after i've kept noting him that his activity is increasingly improper, i think a month seems like a good start (my first AN/I did not include a ban request, the second requested a 7 day ban but the WP:CN case was opened). the most important ingredient missing is a desire to change... in fact, as i see it, there's the opposite - a sincere desire to continue with this soapbox as long as he's allowed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avi - I'd be interested to hear your comments on whether I responded reasonably to the AN/I raised by User:Jaakobou. Given his history of abusive use of warnings on TalkPages and near enough malicious accusations like this (along with his flat refusal to deal with any concerns of mine related to WP policy, or carry out edits his own research prove need making), do you think I should escalate the matter with a complaint of my own? (Should I also target the use of the English language by this user, which I suspect is below the standard necessary to do anything other than be an infernal nuisance?)

In addition, I've started a a new section in an article TalkPage. It is receiving absurd objections that show either total non-understanding of WP policy, or an attempt to vandalise the discussion. My section starting presentation is being broken up with nonsensical comments inserted into it and the indenting used is all over the shop, making it very difficult for other editors to follow. At what stage (and where) should I blow the whistle and demand that this kind of idiocy should stop? I am desperate to avoid the article being locked in the absurd state that it's in, likely the worst article I've ever come across - I'd much appreciate your input on that too. PalestineRemembered 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Personally, I would suggest that neither of you "talk" to each other, directly or indirectly, for the next few weeks and let some of the emotions settle.

No, I do not think you were inappropriate, per se, but it seems that the both of you have histories of accusations of perceived personal attack-type editing.

Were I your mentor, I would advise you that part of being a part of the wiki project is learning to "swallow" some of the garbage that comes along with editing emotionally-charged topics. Sometimes, one just has to let the other person get the last word. Our goal here should not be "right" vs. "wrong"; there is no answer for that. Our goal is to make the best, least partisan, most informative encyclopedia. Therefore, it is appropriate to follow official channels, and better not to respond directly, especially if the comments make you "see red".

People with a history of perceived attacks are often, understandably, afforded less benefit of the doubt due to that history. It takes a while to rebuild that "good will", and it is not easy.

Speaking of which, have you found a mentor, or would you like some help trying to get one? -- Avi 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making efforts to find a mentor, but people have seen the really unpleasant personal attacks launched on anyone comng to my support in many of the quite brutal attempts to get rid of me. Even a complete stranger who came forward as an "Advocate" when I was blocked (having had an astounding, blatantly false allegation made against me) was harrassed by an administrator who demanded to know what he thought he was doing. People who would have blown off the "Do you have a COI?" storm in a tea-cup were reminded that many people here would take really violent opposition to any link between someones service and the destruction caused.

And people are rightly nervous that prospective Mentors, before they've done anything, are liable to aggressive investigation and a perma-block. People have noticed this kind of jeering going on - malicious, utterly false, but part of a campaign. Here's a malicious attempt to smear someone as a sock-puppet for no earthly reason (and link them to me). As long as this kind of nasty trouble-making goes unpunished, it won't only be me that suffers.

I can find you 100s of diffs of the above if you wanted them ...... but I'm sure you get the message.

I pointed you to a case in which I'd started a new topic on a new "angle" - it's effectively been vandalised by people who are "in my face" and know full well they can get away with it - because of discussions like this. I could go back there and re-format the nonsense that's been inserted - I'd simply find myself facing another ANI with no comeback when it was found to be false (if it was found to be false).

Even if I abandon subjects on which I now know rather a lot about and start again on new subjects, there is aggressive ownership going on all over the place from people who know they can get away with it. Here's another one I just noticed. Are you telling me I should back away and not add this 100% genuine RS improvement to the article based on (what I'm almost certain) is the absurd logic of the "owner"? (This is an editor who references me in a disparaging way 4 times on his own UserPage - you must know that I'd never be allowed to behave this badly!). PalestineRemembered 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayssal. Would you be willing to step in as a mentor for Isarig, or could you suggest someone? Thank you. -- Avi 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi. Of course no problem. I'd be needing your help as well in case or it would be better if we were both of us. Because, i am afraid one mentor would not be able to do all the work alone. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought of you as someone whose background is significantly enough different from Isarig's to prevent any appearances of impropriety, and you are one of the most level-headed, fair-minded, calm, and respected editors that I know of. I would be glad to help out, but I am afraid that there will be allegations if I were to do it myself, since my background and upbringing is more close to Isarig's than not. -- Avi 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would become lead mentor I would be glad to be backup (time permitting both of us). Perhaps the community would accept such a joint mentorship? -- Avi 19:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Note that your presence with me would be important as you are also a very level-headed contributor and i've always respected and trusted your judgments. I also the community and Isarig himself would be much reassured. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud both yourself and Fayssal for your fair, firm, reasonable handling of the Isarig CSN. If there were a relevant barnstar, it would be is yours. Italia^vivi 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Happened to leave a note for PalestineRemembered and saw your q about a mentor. Do you happen to be available and/or do you think I should try to find one? Ciao. HG | Talk 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham,

I do not get it. The whole article is very subjective overlaid with individual interpretations, like from Anacalypsis, Gene Matlock, and so on. If my contribution, which I am backing with a lot of reference material, which is only highlighting what has been said by others, why are you against it? These authors are not admitted by the main stream historians and people can have their differences, so far differences are stated and personal opinions explicitly marked.

How an individual researcher can break the barriers set up by the academia? Geoffery Higgins and Gene Matlock published books - but that was before Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia should allow people to put their research under some guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response there relating to the change you made to the template. Acalamari 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User yidisheryid keeps on reverting edits to the page without posting on the talk page first. He he reverting prior edits that were reached through consensus and he just edits to his own POV. He was already blocked once for it. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]