User talk:Armon

Please Note:

From now on, I will respond to conversations started on this page, here. Cheers, <<-armon->>

User talk:Armon/Archive 1

Pallywood

I believe you're over the 3RR. Please self-revert. CJCurrie (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, just to prevent confusion -- my final edit on the Pallywood page today was not a revert, and hence not a 3RR violation. CJCurrie (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada

You're at four reverts, and you've put a typo into the title. Please self-revert.--G-Dett (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I made a typo anyway...<<-armon->> (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

You are in violation of 3RR at Second Intifada. I will give you the opportunity to self revert before reporting your violation. I refer to your recent reversion of the "Casualties" section. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn sorry about that. gimme a sec. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, we all make mistakes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it though if you discussed your concerns at the talk page rather than just engage in edit wars. I know it can be a pain in the bum trying to explain things but ultimately edit wars don't get us anywhere. I think I've already compromised on this particular issue to a very substantial degree but so far I've seen little readiness to reciprocate on your part (or Tewfik's for that matter).

No-one can expect to have everthing their way, and I think there'd be a lot less fuss on Wiki generally if people would just work a bit harder at reaching a compromise on talk pages that all parties can live with, rather than wasting energy on futile revert wars that only tend to aggravate tensions. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, I agree with you. However, look at the talk page, I've discussed the issues at length and I think you're being a bit one-eyed on the subject. If TS wants to rant about how biased I am, there's really nothing to respond to. For example, I thought the infobox issue was settled a long time ago, yet here we go again with the same failed arguments. What do you suggest we do? <<-armon->> (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've conceded on the infobox issue, but there are still some other outstanding issues, which I've addressed on the article talk page. Perhaps you would like to comment there? Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have reverted 3 times at Palestinian people to delete sourced information. I am not going to revert your edit again so as to recuse myself from this edit war. I would appreciate however, in the future, when the information is restored, that you do not keep deleting it. It is sourced and verifiable information and you should gain consensus for the changes you wish to make. I see from your talk page that this style of editing seems to a pattern for you. I hope that you consider breaking it. Thanks. Tiamut 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are back to blanking the same material again. Would you mind responding to Eleland's compromise suggestion, rather than simply pursuing the repeated deletion of sourced material? Thanks. Tiamut 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation again at Second Intifada

You are again in violation of 3RR there (see the previous 3RR notice from Gatoclass higher up on this talk page). I will give you time to self-revert before reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon. I see from your user contributions that you have made some edits on several wikipedia pages since I left my last message here. So you should have seen the notice that the wikipedia software puts on the top of all wikipedia pages that you view. The notice about a new message on your user talk page. Please self-revert. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello adoptee!

Hi there, I haven't spoken to you in a while and I was wondering how things are going. It looks like you've had a few conflicts over the past few months. If you want to chat, I'll be on gtalk for a long time once I get home in two days. Cheers, --Gimme danger (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 HOURS in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nat.utoronto 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jizya

Hi,

I see you are reverting my edits[1], but have not cared to respond to me on the article's talk page. Can you do so now?Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You modified a direct quote and tagged it as OR. It can't be. Please read WP:OR. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

Thanks for the help on Anti-Arabism. It's been a slog and I appreciate the hand. - CheshireKatz (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (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/Palestinian people. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:00, 27 December 2007 (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.

rfm question

Hi. i posted a question for you at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Armon, your comments here are contrary to WP:CIV. Removal of nonreliable blog sources bordering on WP:FRINGE status is entirely appropriate and not evidence of "bad faith". The reason I didn't fix the JPost blog link is that it's disappeared from JPost's server and there's no Google cache; if you can find a reliable copy somewhere you're encouraged to replace it. <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't even look for a fix to a broken link, or, even discuss your blanking sources on talk, it's a self evident example of bad faith given your ideological opposition to the photo. Just don't do that. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, I just *told* you I looked for a fix to the broken link, and I couldn't find one. Furthermore, I left the link in assuming good faith on the part of the original editor. Whatever my ideology is is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's very well founded prohibition on using unreliable or fringe sources to comment on anything but themselves. The blog of the activist group Honest Reporting, the personal blog of a medieval history professor, and the online mouthpiece of David Horowitz do not pass muster. <eleland/talkedits> 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites

I'm not using the cite templates except for Bauer, which was a dead link, but I am collapsing the ridiculous redundancies. I still don't understand Slim's virulent opposition, and her disregard of my requests for information does not help. -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's still a BIG improvement. I think we just need to get more people to comment on the issue. I'm not crazy about the templates either, but I'll go either way. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the superscripted page numbers in line? -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you use an example paragraph, and show the options in a nowiki tag, it will make it easier for people to "vote" for the method they like. Make sense? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

Why did you revert my edit with no discussion? Please don't revert again, without using the talk page, as I have. Thanks. ←Gee♥Alice 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No discussion? You're kidding -right? <<-armon->> (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've asked you to elucidate what you think of the proposed edit at Talk:Palestinian people, pls give a look when you have a chance. Hope you and yours are well. HG | Talk 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please withdraw your remarks

Please withdraw your remarks on Wikipedia talk:No original research. They're untrue, grossly incivil and frankly defamatory, and patently a breach of WP:CIV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I think that given the circumstances, that it was a reasonable and fair comment. I'd also point out that I'm not the only one who though the zombietime image had something to do with this. I certainly didn't intend to cause any offense by them. Sorry If you feel that way. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert limitation

Based on my investigation of a complaint at WP:AE, I am applying the general sanctions enacted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as follows:

• You are placed on revert limitation. You are limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish lobby article mediation

I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)