User talk:Amosmos

wikipedia is not a blog, and blogs are not considered reliable sources, as per WP:SOAP. --HIZKIAH (User  Talk) 08:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: acting president

Hi. The Dalia Itzik article looks OK, it only says she assumed the function of president, not the position, which is quite accurate. How can I help?

I can read Arabic script, but my knowledge of the language is quite basic.--Doron 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Arabic well enough to review that article, but I'm confident that it is as balanced as the Hebrew article (which doesn't say much, really).--Doron 08:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: explanation!

i recently made a clean up (and yet there is still room for more clean up though) on the links section of the "israel" article. right after it the updates were reverted, and i got a vandalizm alert!!

a. why is this vandalizm?!?!?! b. if you take the steps to alert on vandalizm, why don`t you state and explain your opinion that this is vandalizm?! that is very ignorant behavior! amos 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully at the edit I linked to – this one. You will see that as part of that edit, you added the text "Isreal is one collectivly huge dick!". Now, this may or may not have been intentional; however, I think you can see why I had to revert it. Please ensure you do not add such text again. Thanks – Qxz 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a tiny chance that it was me who put this text on the page. this is a bug in the wikipedia system without any doubt. someone edit that page with this sentence and i edited the links at the same time. wikipedia administration put both changes under my name. not even 0.001% chance it was written under my edit. amos 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it is there under your name, and nobody else edited the page between that and your last edit. I could hardly revert anyone else, could I? – Qxz 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What probably happened is you edited this old version of the page instead of the current version, removed the links, and then saved it without noticing the vandalism, thereby re-introducing it and making it look like it was part of your edit. Always make sure you're editing the current version of a page (i.e. there's no red bar saying "this is an old version" at the top) unless you're reverting something. Thanks – Qxz 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters

Hi Amosmos,

Regarding this edit, how do you know that that is indeed one of his pictures? Could you please provide some source detailing that? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel far more comfortable if you could show evidence of it actually being used in an article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I met the warlus

Hello. What are you attempting to do in creating this article? --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]