User talk:Ajnem

Bern

Whilst the rest of your recent amendment to the article on Bern make sense and is an improvement, I don't understand why you remove the reference to the 2007 elections. This is surely noteworthy, and it is quite normal in an article on a city to include information on the respective strengths of the political parties, though admitedly, I don't understand why this was under Demography. I would have thought a Governance section would be a more appropriate place. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello, as far as i see, i did not "remove the reference to the 2007 elections." but you are right, it has to be moved from "Demography" to "Politics".--Ajnem (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajnem. You're quite right, you didn't remove the reference. Sorry about that. My only excuse was it was late and I clearly couldn't see what was there in front of me. Oops! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mileva Maric

Hello, Ajnem.

I have amended the passage on Abram Joffe that you recently changed. You'll find the reasons spelled out in detail on the Mileva Maric discussion page.

I've also removed your addition of "male" describing historians of physics who reject the "collaboration" thesis. The rejection is not confined to male historians of physics, as I point out in another item on the Mileva Maric discussion page.

Best regards, Allen Esterson (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know I have responded to your and Beeback's comments on the Mileva Maric talk page, and to invite you to reply to the specific points I have made in response to yours.

Esterson (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. 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. Thank you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of the 1RR restriction

User:Ajnem, please consider that the frequency and nature of your edits at Itamar killings may constitute a violation of the 1RR restriction. While they appear to be in good faith, they are also symptomatic of WP:OWN. Without having warned you first, Administrators are unlikely to take action; so please review Wikipedia policy at WP:1RR and in particular keep in mind the following: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Take this message not as a personal insult but as constructive criticism and endeavor to be more careful in the future.—Biosketch (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biosketch, don't know what you are referring to. Maybe you want to explain, what it is you object to? Ajnem (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajnem (talk · contribs), see apology at my Talk page for the extended delay in replying. On to the diffs that prompted the reminder:

16:55, 17 March – Removal of wikilink to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan
15:55, 18 March – Removal of sources from lead

Again, my apologies for replying this late.—Biosketch (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUS PIC

Kudos for the great pic you put in Mehadrin Bus lines, though it took me several clicks to see it in high resolution to be able to read the notice for myself. Just between you and me, if women in some communities are considered to be people with 'mugbaluyot', then I guess they are most certainly allowed to sit in the first 2 seats at the front of the bus! lol @Efrat (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you should thank Biosketch; he took the picture, uploaded it and translated the Hebrew text into English. All I did, was move it from Egged, where he put it, to Mehadrin bus lines. But frankly, I don't understand your punch at the disabled, Ajnem (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the disabled, at women, and it wasn't my comment. I work in a mixed workplace. I showed the photo to a female ultra-Orthodox Jewish co-worker (who, btw, has a very weird sense of humor). Understand that the Hebrew word 'disabled' comes from the root also meaning 'limited'. My co-worker said (in Hebrew) that with all the limitations placed on her (by her community), she should be allowed to sit in the front seat according to the sign!--@Efrat (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thought, Ajnem (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Efrat

Please see my comment on Talk:Efrat in the "Photos" section --@Efrat (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jerome J. Shestack

On 28 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerome J. Shestack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the recently deceased, long-time human rights figure Jerome J. Shestack may have survived a kamikaze attack during World War II by being Jewish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerome J. Shestack.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 16:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page note

Hello, Ajnem. You have new messages at Talk:New York's 9th congressional district special election, 2011.
Message added 17:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steve Greenberg

Hi Ajnem. You can't change the article on Steve Greenberg to say that he's an Orthodox rabbi. That's a matter of dispute, and putting one view in the lede is a violation of WP:NPOV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, but all sources say that he is an Orthodox rabbi, or do you have any reliable sources to the contrary? Ajnem (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rollers

Hi Ajnem. In this omnibus edit you added one {{citation needed}} tag. Would you please give more detail about which part of the text is doubtful to you? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph, see here, Ajnem (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Phillip Gross

thanks for working on this. Decora (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure, Ajnem (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Ajnem, please accept this barnstar as a token of appreciation for all your contributions, and in honor of recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia. Thanks again for helping improve the encyclopedia! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff

Please discontinue deleting edits on this article. You are engaging in an editing war and are ignoring sources. An edit from "writer" to "screenwriter & author" was made to reason with your comment but deleting the edits is vandelism. This is your last warning before an admin needs to get involved. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This diff includes a request by you to another editor to log in before giving anyone advice. This is absolutely not appropriate advice. WP is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; there is no requirement to log in or have an account to be allowed to take part in any normal editing activity. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but this, dear Kim Dent-Brown is not very helpful advice either – not under the circumstances. But thanks anyway, Ajnem (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be helpful, so perhaps I shouldn't have phrased it as advice. Let me rephrase it as an instruction: Don't tell anyone they must be logged into an account to edit Wikipedia, however badly you think they are behaving. You can't insist that people obey rules that don't exist. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you were giving instructions everywhere where instructions are needed, and by the way, I didn't tell anybody that he “must be logged into an account to edit Wikipedia” or “insist” he do so, but semantics aside, it's still not helpful. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jack Abramoff, Talk:Jack Abramoff; users: 199.209.144.218, 76.73.168.89, Eelnire. Thank you. Eelnire (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edits

Please cease making unfounded accusations about other editors' motives as you have done at Talk:Jack Abramoff [1] [2]. You may find it useful to read this about casting aspersions. Regards, --92.6.211.228 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

palestnian settelments should be changed to the term the media uses

I've added some notes about the use of the term from 2005, I witnessed the use of Palestinian outpost[s] at least in places like Haaretz , ynetnews ,greenNow , Regavim and few other sources.

Have you encountered a different terms ? I think we should add the legal status as with the Israeli outposts (i.e. illegal by Israel law, illigal by International laws , and disputed by the EU) 109.226.26.232 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Outposts” when they are Palestinian are usually put in quotation marks, and it is an Israeli term. It imo cannot be used in the West Bank article, as there is nothing in the article about the outposts the quotation-mark-outposts get their moniker from: the ones errected by Israelis on land which belongs to Palestinians. If the latter is added, one sentence mentioning that Palestinians are copying the Jews by using caravans is all that's needed. It's an entirely different issue, has nothing to do with international law (4th Geneva Convention), but is an issue of building permits which are practically unobtainable for Palestinians and projects that benefit Palestinians in Area C [3]. See also on West Bank talk page. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind starting an article about the Israeli Guest Hotel evacuation project ?

As an Israeli I think it would be bad for me to write something about evacuation plan in the west bank without a POV on the subject, I've contacted you as one of the evacuation areas is Arial and it would be hard to write something that would not look POV.

I'm referring to :

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-06/11/c_131645773.htm http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4160526,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4240696,00.html

One thing I didn't get if the PA is also in that project (didn't find anything at ma'an) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.48.203 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As far as I see from the sources you give, it's just “a plan for a mass evacuation in the event of a missile attack” based on existing plans for evacuations in other cases of emmergencies such as earthquakes. What's the fuss? It's about time Israel makes such plans, every developed country has them, and of course they have to include the Settlements. In Switzerland, a neutral country which hasn't seen any foreign soldiers since the time of Napoleon, we have the most sophisticated infrastructure for it, Sweden, another neutral country has a different system but no less sophisticated. In Israel, you use Scotch tape, or those who are smart and really know about Arabs and Muslims just go to Jerusalem for shelter, bargaining that no Arab leader will dare to attack Jerusalem because of the Muslim Holy Sites. But then, I don't kow how holy they are for Syrian Alawites. But the missiles haven't arrived yet. However, the question wether the PA is included is a good one. You want to bet? Ajnem (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible_legal_threat_on_Jimbo.27s_talk_page. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Template:Z7--John (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ajnem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I see, I was blocked indefinitely for asking Jimmy Wales on his talk page 1 about his opinion concerning the action to be taken regarding an actionable offence which, initiated by me, had been discussed on his talk page earlier during several days 2. As can be seen on Jimbo's talk page 1, he answered my question quite pomptly, which I thank him for. Before he had the time to answer my question, Dmcq had come to the conclusion that I was making a “legal threat” and blocked me, and in a practically inexistent discussion afterwards 3, it was ‘decided’ that my question was “making legal threats” and “coersion”, no less. Promptly posted on Jimbo's talk page by Dmcq, the cryptical sentence reads: “Ajnem has been blocked indefinitely or until such time as they can clarify on their talk page about that they are not thinking of legal action” 1.

You cannot seriously believe that I, a user you probably have never even heard of, could make Jimmy Wales give an assessment after he had not bothered to give it earlier, most likely because it didn't occur to him that I or anybody else was expecting him to, by using a threat and even coercison, as has been claimed 3, and on his own talk page of all places? Your blocking me imo quite obviously is due to a misunderstanding. My guess is that it is due to the fact that the blocking administrator didn't know or didn't take into consideration that the discussion I refered to was about a legal offence actionable in court (according to European law, though probably not in the US), and therefore misunderstood my post as a threat to take legal action, when in fact taking legal action in the matter is not what I think should be done. But I may not be the best judge of that.

If the phrasing of my questions has been perceived as offensiv, I sincerely regret it and apologize, to Jimbo in particular, but I can assure you that no offence, let alone threat or coersion was intended. Not beeing a native English speaker, I sometimes may not be able to express myself as clearly as I would like to. But I would not want to become the first Wikipedian ever to be blocked for allegedly having successfully “coerced” Jimmy Wales into doing something he didn't want to do – and something as natural as being civil enough to answer a simple question into the bargain. So please unblock me and make sure the block doesn't show in my block log, and let's all forget it ever happened, as this is embarassing, but everybody makes mistakes. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Am I to understand that your putting above into your archiv not bothering to answer my post or my e-mail means that you don't think it necessary to take any action, and that you want me to take it to court?" sounds exactly like a threat of legal action (what else?) and I don't see a retraction, which should be very simple and leave no other possible interpretations. Max Semenik (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ajnem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well guys, I'm not going to fight. If you want me out of Wikipedia, I wont overstay my welcome. But I do request to be unblocked a second time, as I don't want to make the same mistake twice. Not being blocked “to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia”, as Wikipedia:Blocking policy defines blocks, I would like to be sure that I interpret the block correctly. Seeing that it took twenty minutes to review my request and decline it, I presume that it was taken up with ‘the proper authorities’, and not just decided by one administrator who happened to see it. But I don't want to take too much for granted. But I think I can count on it that even if it hasn't been checked with what I called ‘the proper authorities’ so far, it will be, before my request (see my first request) to be unblocked is declined a second time. After all, I'm being blocked because you claim that I “threatened”, if not “coerced” Jimmy Wales into making a suggestion. Therefore I'll assume that if you keep me blocked for keeps, it will be as a result of what he suggested, not against it. Ajnem (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You made it clear that you will be taking Wikipedia to court. That's fine- you have a legal right to do that- but until your case is fully resolved, or you have unambiguously withdrawn it, it's necessary for you to stay off of Wikipedia, and let your lawyer communicate with Wikimedia's lawyer rather than editing Wikipedia directly. That's a very clear Wikipedia policy, and I don't have the right to lift a block while your court case is still outstanding. No administrator does. Please, feel free to request unblocking again after your case is finished, or if you have changed your mind about taking legal action, say so clearly - a statement such as, 'I have not taken any legal action against Wikipedia or anyone on Wikipedia, and I have no intention of taking any legal action in the future,' for example. For more information about this policy, you can read WP:LEGAL for yourself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ajnem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you FisherQueen for giving me a civil explanation for the block. As I have stated earlier, this is a misunderstanding. I have not “made it clear that [I] will be taking Wikipedia to court”. I have made it clear, or I thought I had, that I will only take ‘the matter in question’ – which is not Wikipedia – to court on Jimmy Wales say so ¹. In my personal opinion it is not a matter which should go to court, as that might hurt Wikipedia, which evidently is involved, otherwise I would not have bothered Jimmy Wales with it.

I asked Jimbo a question (“Am I to understand that ... you don't think it necessary to take any action, and that you want me to take it to court?” ¹) which he aswered, obviously not perceiving it as a threat, let alone an announcement that I was going to take legal action: “I can barely read German and so I'm not the right person to ask about this” ¹. (What I refer to as ‘the matter in question’ is in German.)

FisherQueen, there is no “court case ... outstanding” or to be “fully resolved”, or to be “unambiguously withdrawn”, let alone a “lawyer [who could] communicate with Wikimedia's lawyer”, or as you want me to phrase it: I have not taken any legal action against Wikipedia or anyone on Wikipedia. It was all made up by an overzealous, blocking happy Wikipedian who posts stuff like “Ajnem has been blocked indefinitely or until such time as they can clarify on their talk page about that they are not thinking of legal action” ¹ on Jimbo's talk page. I don't want to get personal, but somebody else did mention “a pink elephant” ¹.

As far as the future is concerned, you cannot possibly expect me to state that I'll never be “taking any legal action [against Wikipedia] in the future”. If that was the condition on which users can edit Wikipedia, you would have to get that statement from every user when s/he registers, if not from everyone before an edit is saved. This clearly is not Wikipedia policy. And more likely than not, there would be no Wikipedia if it were. But what I can promise is that I'll notify Wikipedia, or rather the Wikimedia Foundation, should I ever take legal action against Wikipedia or another of its projects. It goes without saying that I can only speak for myself, not for others. So please unblock me, and I'd appreciate it, if the block didn't show in the block log. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Ajnem met the requirements in the previously denied unblock request by withdrawing the legal threat in statements below. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but you lost me at "Overzealous, blocking happy Wikipedian...". If the block was incorrect, you'd already be unblocked. Your initial comment seemed to indicate that Jimbo's response would dictate whether you took legal action, and that the nature of his response could prevent that legal action - and that's precisely the sort of thing the policy is intended to prevent. Now, if your response is "I'm not suing wikipedia, nor anyone on wikipedia, and have no plans to do so." then great - you can be unblocked and we move on with our lives. If your response is "I'm not suing wikipedia, but might later on." then we still have a problem. As for the last paragraph of your unblock request, I think you're overthinking it. You do not have the right to edit wikipedia. Rather, you are permitted to edit wikipedia so long as you do so in compliance with its policies and procedures. One of these is WP:LEGAL, which requires parties to active or pending litigation to not edit the project. Your statement on Jimbo's talk page seemed to violate that policy, and you were rightly blocked as a result. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be cynical, but if there is a “legal threat” on Jimbo's talk page, it is Jimbo's post, saying: “If legal action is contemplated, then a chat with Geoff Brigham may be useful...”¹. Now that really is serious stuff, it coming from Jimmy Wales! Is he to be blocked, because he seems to be thinking about legal action and not keeping his thoughts to himself? And please, do not psychoanalyse me. There is a Wikipedia policy which says to assume good faith, Ajnem (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be because Geoff Brigham is the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel - and the person you'd talk to about possible legal actions involving the German Wikipedia or its users. He didn't say "Stop going on about this or we'll take it to court" (which would be a legal threat), he said, essentially, that you might want to talk to this guy, since he handles that sort of thing (which is not a legal threat). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can threaten or engage in legal action against Wikipedia, or you can be an active Wikipedia editor, but not both at the same time. If you can confirm here that you understand this, and that you withdraw any comments that may have lead people to believe legal action was planned, I will unblock you. Please note that continuing to discuss legal action after an unblock will lead to an immediate and permanent reblocking. Either take action and leave Wikipedia, or hold your own counsel and edit here freely. What you can't do is edit here while at the same time discussing what legal action you might or might not take. This is NOT a demand that you never take legal action against Wikipedia, nor that you promise never to do so as a condition of unblocking. All you have to stop is the discussion of possible action, which has a chilling effect on discussion here. If you do decide to respond to this message please make it short and to the point. One sentence (based on my second sentence here) should suffice. If you can't make your reply short and sweet, I probably won't be able to unblock. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dent-Brown, I understand what you explained in your first sentence, as well as your further explanations, and I withdraw any comments that may have lead people to believe legal action was planned and apologize to everybody. Ajnem (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graciously done Ajnem, thanks Amatulić for the prompt unbloc. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hello, I received email from you asking if the unblock rationale in your block log could be changed to something to the effect of "withdrew comments suggestive of planned legal action". I'm replying here because someone else may have a solution. I could be wrong, but I simply don't know of any way to edit an unblock rationale that has already been logged. While an admin can re-block an already-blocked user with a different rationale (which adds a new block entry in the log, rather than replacing the previous one), I see no way to "re-unblock" someone who is not blocked.

I suppose I could re-block you and then unblock you again to create a new unblocked entry with the changed rationale, but then your block log would fill up with more entries, which I suspect wouldn't be acceptable to you.

I also observe that three other admins above saw your words as a legal threat. I won't argue semantics over the word "threat" except to say that I don't view the term in a negative way. You see, any discussion of legal action against Wikipedia, whether speculative or not, constitutes a "threat" in the sense of being a possibility. Such discussions are never to be aired in public, so blocking is a way to prevent further public discussion. No bad faith was implied by that word in the unblock rationale. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amatulić, for taking the trouble of trying to solve my problem. If it is technically not feasible to just change the unblock rationale without adding others, then please don't bother any more. It is not a matter of life and death, it's just that it makes me look like the worst possible kind of fool in my eyes, if it says in my blocklog that I'm making legal threats on Jimmy Wales talkpage. I suppose that there are users who might do that, but I would not want to be in that category. If somebody comes up with a solution, that would be great, but if not, thank you all for trying, Ajnem (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, the block log doesn't mention Jimmy Wales or give any detail at all. And the drama on this talk page can be removed and archived, so no one will see it when coming to this page.

Eventually this talk page will grow to the point where you need to trim it down, and you can trim it now if you like. But don't just trim it, archive it. That way there's always a record you can link to if anyone ever misunderstands the background behind what happened. A good auto archiver is User:Miszabot which is easy to set up simply by creating a tag at the top of your talk page according to the directions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amatulić, thank you for showing some compassion for my idiosyncrasy. I had no idea that it would pose a technically unsolvable problem to change the rationale, not having any insight into what you guys do behind the scene. It's only the block log that worries me, not my talk page; most on it are disambiguation link notification I should remove anyway, but I'll start an archive eventually.

Should you wake up at night sometime in the near future with a flash of inspiration how to change a logged rationale, please feel free to try it on my block log. But it's no problem anymore, the whole uproar was my fault, and I can assume the responsability for my actions. What counts is the way you reacted to my request – and that puts you on top of my list of “decent admins”. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are rarely appreciated, so I thank you for your comment. I try to abide by Wikipedia:Assume good faith as best as I can.

You remind me that my own block log embarrasses me also, making me look incompetent (it shows me blocking myself for "disruptive editing" when I meant to block someone else). But the block log is what it is. Once something gets logged in it, there's nothing I can do about it.

Carry on, and know that the community will judge you by how you conduct yourself overall, not by an isolated misunderstanding from the past. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Infobox

I have replied on Talk:Israeli settlement. In the future please bring up general Israel-related discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, otherwise we can only stumble upon the discussions in individual articles if we watch them, which many of us do not. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Eelnire (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word Writer & Republican

Ajnem is attempting to start up an editing war that he engaged in with me last year and was warned about for his vandalism of the first line on this page, please read the history for detail, he continually kept removing the word writer even though a consensus was reached to leave it with input from other users. This was discussed at GREAT lengths and concluded that the word writer would remain based on other user input. Yet Ajnem has popped up yet again to try and remove the word thinking everyone is gone and forgotten about it. We also discussed using the word Republican in the opening line and it was removed because Jack is NOT a politician and worked for multiple Democrat lobbyist firms. Ajnem please do not start up another editing war on the use of the work Writer, I am monitoring this page because I knew you would return.Eelnire (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]