User talk:Kosmopolis

3RR violation

Kosmopolis, you have violated the 3RR rule at 2006 Israel-Lebanon War. This states that we may only revert — which means any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, whether involving the same material or different material each time — up to three times in 24 hours. You have reverted four times. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself; if you don't, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Please review WP:3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete your self-revert. In the meantime, I have listed you for a 3rr violation. I'm sorry that its come to this, but the rules are there to protect the consensus. Tewfik^Talk 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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.

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

You have been blocked for 48 hours for evading blocks while already under 3RR block. Please do not use IP address editing to violate policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Lebanon conflict

I saw your rant about User:Tewfik -- I haven't read the whole thing. But as to the background section, I reverted his, how shall I say, "ellipses", and moved the whole section to a new article. It need work still, but there's plenty of room. Have at it. -- Kendrick7 01:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I also created Category:Israel-Lebanon conflict which has links to all the relevant articles I could find. -- Kendrick7 01:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions

Dear Kosmopolis, Thanks for your contributions to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict page. It sure made the article a good read and more balanced. Keep up the good work.

Marwan123 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Marwan123[reply]

Pallywood

Hi, please stop removing definitions of Pallywood which were not invented by Landes himself. While Landes may have been referring specifically to Palestinians, the term has since then gained widespread use regarding non-Palestinian Arab media manipulation as well, notably Adnan Hajj. Even a simple Google search reveals that many websites refer to Adnan Hajj's photos as Pallywood (or in some cases Hezbollywood, a derived term). Yes it's true that the name Pallywood itself implies the Palestinians, like many words it grew out of its original meaning into something broader. There is no proof whatsoever that Pallywood now refers exclusively to Palestinian media manipulation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in here (this discussion might be better if moved to Talk:Pallywood), but I'll just note that Pallywood probably should only refer to Palestinians, but that it is indeed used for other performances. Perhaps the entire article should be merged into Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --GunnarRene 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will move your posts to the talk page of the article. See you there. Kosmopolis 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Tewfik

Throw your weight in file, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Question. Reaper7 19:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Would you please comment on Talk instead of reverting? This is extremely unproductive. Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am answering at the exact moment. Kosmopolis 18:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soliciting help on neofascism page

You know the true worth of a person from the battles he engages in. After reading the discussion here, I am truly impressed. I too have had a wheel war with Tewfik, but I got outnumbered when Silverburg showed up. Tewfik means harmony and togetherness in Arabic and Hewbrew. Keep up the good work!

i'm just sheer outnumbered at the neofascism page. I have a perfectly innocent comment by Professor Juan Cole that keeps constantly getting reverted by Isarig for one and others. At one time a compromise formulation had been reached and isarig came in and reverted it. I stick it back in when I get a chance. It stays there a couple of hours before it's deleted. Here it is:

The Likud members of Israel that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.)[1][2]

Best Wishes Will314159 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale Reversions on July War Article

Very very distatseful and certainly not cricket to do wholesale reversion. It's so hard to figure out what she's done, looks she's re-written the whole article and tried to count it as one revert subverting the 3RR rule. Can't stoop to her level. Have to look at the changes one by one. but a wholesale unreversion may be in order while her changes are examined. Email me, if I decide to do that, it appears it would take an hour to undo a bunch of little POV pushing changes buried in graphics. Again email me, I just don't feel llike hummus today. Best Wishes Will314159 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very intersting, I hope Daniels edits were preserved during the version revert. Best Wishes Will314159 14:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the block. I"m sure it was caused by trying to correct the unfair wholesale reversions. I had Isarig 3RR me one time after he had violated 3RR. No action was taken contrary to rule. Of course I had to wait a day until the block expired to report him. Too bad there aren't more fluent English speakers willing to participate in fair NPOV editing. Don't you feel outnumbered sometimes? Email me. Best Wishes Will314159 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Hi - I have to run. We discuss this later. Cheers. Dianelos 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[3] made on September 26 2006 to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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 48 hours. William M. Connolley 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

But please it was much more than a stub when I got there, and your sectionalizing when it was only a mere backgrounder inspired me. I have always had a knack for editing the work of others. Forgive me, if you please, if I have been quick to re-edit even your edits, though I am happy that we have never gone to war. Thanks again. -- Kendrick7 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the snip-away-other-peoples'-work style of editing

Sorry for the delay in answering.

First of all I think the 3RR is a very good rule. Actually I personally try to follow the 1RR rule. I think reverting another editor's work more than once a day is unseemly. You know, the golden rule, and all that.

Now the most important thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia works. The system works. It may take a while but ever so slowly the quality of the articles increases. I mean compare the current state of the article about the recent Israel Lebanon war with how it was one month ego – and this issue is as contentious as it gets. I know how annoying it is when another editor just simply deletes a contribution one spent hours preparing. I also find that quickly deleting information that is clearly relevant and well sourced without even discussing one's reasoning in the talk page to be unconscionable. But here are two points to keep in mind: Sometimes, ever so rarely :-P, these snip away editors are right: one's contribution may be too verbose, or its language may not be as neutral as it could, or may not exactly reflect what the references say, or may not really be that relevant, or one's sources may not be as high quality as they could. Secondly, having one's contribution deleted often motivates one to do some more research and find better information and better references. Now an encyclopedia is about facts, and there are plenty of high quality sources of information in the Internet (and in books, have you tried the "search inside" service in amazon.com?) - so if one is right one will be able to cement one's contribution in a way that will stick, and the end result in the encyclopedia will be higher quality and better sourced. A final idea: Contribute in small bits – they are easier to chew by all concerned.

Again I know how annoying it is to have one's contribution simply deleted by others. (Actually I think there should be a rule against that, maybe the DDRR rule: don't delete relevant and referenced information without first discussing your reasoning in the talk page.) Anyway, it's very important not to loose one's cool. After all if one is to be a long-time contributor to WP it's important that one keeps enjoying the process of contributing – so don't let others spoil this for you. My advice: give it time. WP will not go away. If you feel yourself getting angry give yourself a few days off from editing – maybe using this time to educate yourself better and have stronger material in the future - or go work on some WP articles that are not contentious at all, which is about 99% of the lot.

Cheers. And I am looking forward to working with you in the future. Dianelos 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I've left you some comments on Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Tewfik^Talk 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back by now. It's easy to fall in those 3RR traps when you are so outnumbered. Take Care. Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 23:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations

Your recent edit to International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged 4 sub-articles. Kosmopolis (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merge / delete Israel-Lebanon sub-sub-articles

I'm not "sabotaging" your attempts, I'm working hard to get an admin to help out. I would appreciate if you stop reverting my reversion there, because the last attempt failed due to their not understanding what I wanted. Tewfik^Talk 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advise that you not edit Humanitarian and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, as it needs to be deleted so that International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Organizations can take its place with the new name, this preserving the history. Tewfik^Talk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well

You are perhaps not familiar with the definition of the term. To be guilty of poisoning the well, all that you have to do is present information about the speaker, in an attempt to pre-emptively discredit his views. This information is indeed often of the form 'Dershovitz is a liar or fanatic ', but does not have to be. See [4] for a complete description. In the context of the article we are discussing, providing Dershowitz's opinions of Arbour is irrelvant to the charge he was making regarding Hezbollah's use of human sheilds, and is obviously irrelevant to the section "Hezbollah's "human shield" tactics". Isarig 01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand how "*stating* the subject's (irrelevant to the topic) views "pre-emptively discredit his views"" - read the source I've provided you with. Isarig 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: Temporary block

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.

You Should be Back by Now

Wiskis for the Men, Beers for the horses Will314159 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kosmo

Looks like just an editing error. 2006 isn't even on my watchlist, because I think I'd start to go nuts. Anyway, it's not the end of the world if an article is somehow wrong for a day or two, you've got to take the long view of things, and you might not find yourself in so many edit wars. -- Kendrick7 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmo: It's an awful feeling to have to sit out on the sidelines while the article gets xxxxx. I personally thing the Administrator that blocked you should have recused (it means about the same thing as excused from) himself from the matter. He made IMHO a very POV revert in the neofascism article that showed his pro Israel POV bias. Wiskis for the Editors- Beers for the Horses. Will314159 13:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2006/October/16. It seems that some people want to remove any reference to Palestine. Hossein.ir 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil, sometimes... give your opinion

Look at this: [6]. Is it it a force deployment or voting? Please give your opinion about this. --Hossein.ir 20:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Leo-strauss-aged.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leo-strauss-aged.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jimi-hendrix-woodstock-1969.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jimi-hendrix-woodstock-1969.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jimi-hendrix-woodstock-1969.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jimi-hendrix-woodstock-1969.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Takashi-shimura-ikiru.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Takashi-shimura-ikiru.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]