User talk:Lanternix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reporting Vandalism by User:(nadermeleka) & (Orthopraxia)[edit]

Hello Lanternix,

This is BVS, We would like to report continous Vandalism by user (nadermeleka) and his friend (Orthopraxia) who are trying to delete and revert sections of the article to help them in their ultimate goals.

As you now, Weikpedia is not the place for any battles nor who is right or who is wrong (Truth Rule). They have been asked to do so for specific reasons.

Please give a warning one more time to these users that Wikipedia is not a battle zone and is not the place to fight or have battles whether they think they are right or wrong or being asked to do that (Truth Rule). We have corrected this matter several times, but they insist on doing so and they have a 24 hours shifts to accomplish there goals.

Before we take the matter to another level within Wikipedia claims, we would like to ask for your help and to explain to them that they should NOT revert any information made at good faith efforts done by other users. They have been caught red-handed doing so and they admitted that. We will restore it one more time, but if they do NOT stop, then we are really asking for you help to stop this vandalism.

Wikipedia is NOT the place to attack other people good faith editing, to fight, to dispute or to claim the (Truth Rule). If they do NOT stop, then we are asking you to take specific actions against them after giving them a warning.


Wikipedia rules need to be respected despite any church internal disputes and no matter were they stand in it.

(Orthopraxia) already received several vandalism warnings previously and is known to engage in edit wars (Check his talk).

Thank you for your help & support.

Bvs --Bvs1925 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The only vandal here is you and your IP address. I suggest you stop adding that stupid website and the photo of that fake bishop before I get you banned forever from Wikipedia. There is the final warning for you, and I'm getting quite fed up with your attitude! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ[talk] 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternix,

Please do not jump into conclusions before checking up the vandalism done and admitted by these respectable (2) Users. I am not the one reverting their edits or getting involved in there efforts. They are the ones doing so. It is very clear and they admitted doing that.

If they disagree with some of the church members, we are sorry for that. The Wikipedia rules are very clear and they should be aware of it. This is not a battlefield area for their believes. (Truth Rule). They need to stop reverting other people`s good faith efforts and editing. Please do not adopt their point of view based on their goals which clearly contradicts the Wikipedia rules.

Their (talk) clearly shows that they are involved in editng wars and they have at least half dozens of vandalism claims from other members (Please check their talk) and ask them to refrain from doing so. friendship with some of them should not be an excuse to adopt their point of views and allow them to revert other people`s efforts and we strongly resent their accussations about Bishop Mena. The Diocese information needs to be reinstated because this is our right. Sorry if they don't like our people or they call the Bishop (fake) that is their problem and I see they need payers. We abide by Wikipedia rules and they have to do the same.

Thank you for your understanding.


Bvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvs1925 (talkcontribs) 11:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lanternix,

This is quite a ridiculous situation, both BVS 125 and IP Address 71.195.186.130, unless they are the same person, are engaged in a very weird and persistant vandalism in most of the pages related to the Cptic Orthodox Church by insisting of the addition of a fake or non existant bishop of an non existant diocese. I have warned them but to no avail. Here is the fact of the matter and they are aware of it, if that information was true, no one would have any mind or even thing to such an addition, everyone wants to have the number of bishops and dioceses of the Coptic orthodox Church grow every day, but to add such an information, the following need to be done: 1) To have any confirmation from theHoly Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Vhurch about such a diocese or bishop. This is non existant and they know that very well. 2) Whoever reads the contents of the so-called Fresno diocesan website, notes that there is a mojor feud among the members of the congregation of that parish (not diocese0 and the apparently imposed priest on them, to the point of having serious disagreement about several investigations done by several bishops about that feud. 3)The title of the website states that the so-called bishop is called Mina the Ischariot, which meens the treator among the ecclesiastical parlance, which in turn means that the website is created to mock the whole idea of the bishop and the diocese, by saying that the people of that parish are suffering from an imposed clergy, who is backed by some bishops as it claims, comparing him with Judas the Ischariot and have an episcopal imposition. Accordingly, this website does not proof the existance of a diocese or a bishop but mocks them. 4) It is clear that the image provided for that so-called bishop is composed or superimposed. by matching episcopal vestments on the face of that priest.

It becomes evident that the reason behind the insistance for adding such an addition in many Coptic Orthodox Church related pages on Wikipedia, is an attempt to propagate the apparent injustice imposed on that parish, by mocking the priest, by making him a bishop and the parish a diocese. So these two fellows are actually against that priest and they using Wikipedia pages as a tool of their WAR against that priest and whoever fllows him and protects him. I even suspect that they/he have created that webpage for the sake of such mokery.

So the WAR here is from these two gentlemen (or gentleman, if it's only one person) and all I, you and others are doing is stoping them/him from doing this persisting vandalism.

If they/he can provide a document or documents from the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church about such addition, creation of a diocese, consecration of such bishop, date of consecration and by whom and where from a reliable source, then by all means this addition is welcomed. Of course you know and I know that this will never happen. I am copying this message on the User talk page of BVS 125 for his information.

I will never stop preventing the vandalism they/he are/is doing and I hope that you would do the same. If you have the means to ban them/him permanently, please do so, since obviously they have an agenda of their own. Thanks.Orthopraxia (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bvs--Bvs1925 (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Lanternix,

We read Orthopraxia comments and here are our responses to it:

1) Mr. Orthopraxia is trying to analyze the Diocese of Fresno status in order to reach conclusions that leads to a truth from his own opinion (Truth Rule). Also, we are very well capable of answering his arguments, Wikipedia is not found to be a war zone or to prove one party is right and the other party is wrong (Truth Rule).

2) Orthopraxia being extremely interested in our Diocese's status raises red flags about who is behind him and what goals is he trying to achieve. He is very likely to be driven by a request of another Bishop who is supporting Bishop Mena. (And he knows who is the person we are talking about !!!). Again, Wikipedia is not the place for WAR regarding any Church internal disputes.

3) Orthopraxia, is trying to discuss the method used in choosing Bishop Mena and whether he was chosen by the members of the Diocese of through any other method? Thus taking the discussion into the root of the church well-known dispute to achieve his goal of eliminating the Diocese information from Wikipedia and scoring it.

4) The Diocese information has the right to be listed in Wikipedia despite the disagreement going on between several Bishops. We in the Diocese maintain open door policy and accept the others opinions (Please see the link to Bishop Athanasius's TV program having problems with Fr. Mena (later on Bishop Mena) and we never deleted that.

5) Orthopraxia and his friend are fellows of Bishop Ermia and trying to achieve his goals by eliminating the presence of the Diocese (because it is against their best interest).

6) We will never stop demanding our right to have the Diocese of Fresno listed in Wikipedia (because its presence is a fact) and widely known to everybody) desite attempts to deny it.

7) I (Bvs) can easily stop this silly editing war with these (2) Users, if they agree to stay away from us and abide the Wikipedia rules regarding editing other people's work and the (Truth Rule).

8) Finally, I want you to think about this (What is it for Orthopraxoia and his friend in it?), what would make them come from nowhere to start bothering the Fresno Coptic people in their diocese? Is that happening out of their goodwill? Are they making 24 hours shifts to focus on this subject out of their good nature? The answer is obvious, we in Fresno, know who is behind them and they know that we know !!!!!

9) Finally, and despite the fact of the friendship with Orthopraxia, we are still asking you to activate the Wikipedia rules regarding: a) Editing Rules for editing other user's work. b) Truth rules, c) All applicable other rules.

10) Although, we have 250 members in our diocese that can easily join Wikipedia to protect their right to have religious information on Wikipedia and get into what Orthopraxia wants to drag us to, and this will end up that he either stop his vandalism of our diocese information or will end up blocking 250 users who will come back again to defend their religion.

11) We will also, take this matter to another level with Wikipedia because his requests are completely unacceptable. He already had (6) vandalism warnings and it makes us wonder how many warnings does it take for him to stop. We are fed up with these acts. We will not make any announcement or recommendations with the coptic orthodox families in the diocese, until you make your final decision regarding our rights and activating and applying the Wikipedia rules.

Nofri Lantermix,

Thanks for your response. Keep me posted. Merry Christmas to you too. Orthopraxia (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Lanternix,

It is quite obvious that these people have paranoia, this BVS guy, starts to make assumtions and deductions with a hint of a conspiracy theory. I don't need to defend myself, but for your knowledge:

  • I don't know anything about this misrable parish and its more misrable congregation and I live in San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles.
  • I have never been in Fresno in my life and no no one who is a member of this parish.
  • For the last 8 years, I don't deal any bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church on a personal level or even is a friend of mine.
  • I myself had problems with the ministry and services within the Coptic Orthodox Church and I am not involved in any activities in it.
  • I am not a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church anymore since 2001 and almost never deal with members of the local Coptic Orthodox Church where I used to worship.
  • I am an active member in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and hold the rank of Subdeacon in my Antiochian Orthodox parish, with is under the omophorion (jurisdiction) of His Grace Bishop Joseph Zahlawe, Bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles and the West. This does not mean that I am not proud of my Coptic Orthodox heritage and am not intersted in its history, dogma and ecclesiastical matters.
  • I have learned from previous experience from dealing and interacting with Coptic Orthodox Clergy (Hierarchs and Priests) that made me never want to deal with any of them anymore.

So this BVS guy and his associates need to get off their horses and stop their propaganda. If, hypothetically speaking this parish with its priest became a diocese and he became a bishop, then it is definetly not under the jurisdiction of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Now all it needed, if that claim is true, to provide a substantial proof of such diocesan erection and such episcopa consecration. All such events are always properly documented in the offical website of the Patriarchate and most definetly published in the "El Kerazza". I don't see that! Until this is proved, then there is no place on the Holy Synod page for such fabricated information, nor is too on other Coptic Orthodox Church relaled pages. That's beside the fact what I mentioned before that the proof provided is a mokery of that so-called diocese and that so-called bishop. If this PVS guy wants to discuss this issue by phone, here it is (818)989-7682 Orthopraxia (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nofri Lanternix, Thank you for your concern and understand your point of view, but the information I provided is not confidential and I am not afraid to give my phone number, perhaps the issue can be resolved by phone. Anyway, if you have a minute or two, call me, I haven't spoken to you since that sole phone call we made along time ago.Orthopraxia (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I know this is pretty late now, but thanks for the barnstar, Lanternix :) Hopefully my contribs can stay up there, if I can keep up with it XD ~ Troy (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.28.79.43[edit]

I suggest you keep an eye on the article being trashed by this ip hes a sock of several accounts and has been blocked cheers here is the proof [1] just keep reverting all his edits thanks 86.151.127.157 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians[edit]

Hey bro just wanted to ask if you could revert the edit made the ip sock hes trying to hide the fact of hindu oppression against christians and give undu weight to the muslim section to cover up the recent hindu christian conflict cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.127.157 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic editor[edit]

Nice to see a Coptic editor around, it adds to an essential balance in articles dealing with the Arab world! There is in fact a lovely Coptic Church next to my university. If you don't mind me asking what I generally like learning from orthodox Christians, what's your view on the Eastern-Oriental schism? I always hear really interesting points from each side so I like asking, because it is less clear cut than the Latin-Eastern schism. It also involves really interesting christology. --Afghana [talk] 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copt[edit]

I was reading the article and i found it not only well written, but also visually pleasing. I just felt like appreciating the top contributor. great work man. Hamza [ talk ] 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians[edit]

Hi the edit by the sock of ip24 has been reinserted by another hindu indian editor the greyanomoly please could you revert they are hiding the facts that hindus attacked christians in 2008 86.154.149.72 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both users in question (24/70 and the guy above) are banned from Wikipedia. 24/70 is Hkelkar, while the guy above is Nangparbat. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr[edit]

see here Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I steal[edit]

this:

After what he has witnessed in both virtual and real life, this user has become a firm supporter of the state of Israel

for my userpage? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Coptic Synod[edit]

It's great that you're keeping track of the Coptic pages, but the current format is unhelpful. Metropolitans of the church are linked with metropolis instead of pages about their (personal) diocese. Dioceses are linked with generic city pages instead of articles about the diocese itself, their history, and their former bishops.

Red links will show people where work needs to be done. Besides which, there is a page for the Diocese of Syene: you just didn't wait until I was finished posting it up. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:PopeShenoudaIII24.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:PopeShenoudaIII24.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You created this work entirely by yourself? This isn't true, it's a derivate of File:Egypt location map.svg and you totally ignored the license. Please read the license text (same license for derivates, not public domain, naming the author of the source) and correct the file desciption. NNW (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Alexandria Governorate.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz talk 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lanternix, I'm from Israel and the Heberw wiki. I found that you created one of the maps of Governorates of Egypt. I found also that the two maps are not the same. for example, Giza Governorate, no.11, is very small in the upper map (not yours) which does not fit with the table that says the area is 85,000 km^2 (bigger than Sinai peninsula which is 60,000 km^2). how can you explain the differences, and which map is the right one? Thank you.Tushyk (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!![edit]

Hi, thank you for your note, i will add the article you told me of to my watchlist. I enjoy Phoenician archaelogy and history (i find it particularly interesting and mysterious), history of the Levant and Lebanese culture & cultural venues articles, I already got two articles GA rated and am working on a third one, what is your area of interest mate, maybe we may be able to help one another. Let's stay in touch, Eli+ 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop reverting my edits here, thankyou. Izzedine (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Arab. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! First of all, I encouraged the other party to discuss his reverts of my edits, which he/she has not done. Secondly, I agreed with some of his points and restored some of his changes as a compromise. Thirdly, and most importantly, I made one change and only 3 reverts, which technically does NOT break the 3RR rule! Get another admin to look at this, please! --Lanternix (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is still edit warring even if you don't pass 3 reverts; read WP:3RR carefully. But if you want another admin to look at this, there are clear instructions above. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

The rules apply to some and not to others here, get used to it, even admins do not assume good faith and how could they, bias is everywhere. Well i looked into the matter of Kataeb , it looks as usual that wikipedia is used as a tool for political propaganda, to make things worse, there are wikioedians who assume knowledge of a subject but in fact they know nothing about it nor do they look up references or do a fact check. the end result is you get bombarded by ridiculous warnings and end up blocked ;P So as i was saying the references cited in kataeb were taken out of context, if a party adopts fascist discipline and not a fascist agenda and ideology then it is not qualified as fascist, that was most refused to comprehend because their own political affiliations forbade them to. I found a conclusive source that i added hoping this will end this pointless dispute. Eli+ 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic speaking Chrsitians[edit]

Hi mate, the debate is pointless here. Arab ethnicity is probably a minority in the arab states outside the peninsula, people don't and wont get that just as long as people in the "arab world" speak arabic. The term arab christians is not wrong but is not very accurate. I tend to avoid articles i cannot provide conclusive evidence for. read my comment on the talk page and we'll see what is to be done, in all cases there are too many unreferenced passages in the article that make it pretty unreliable, it's pretty poor and biased. Eli+ 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC) OMG i messed it up, i left out the ic and when i noticed it was too late, i requested a page move from and admin since all the pages history is left out :( Eli+ 20:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no mate i am Furious[edit]

not your mistake, the page is a mess, i advise you not to trouble yourself like i did if you;re gonna spend>2 hrs researching and piecing together a section that ends up in the toilet Eli+ 00:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Governorates Map[edit]

I see that You've made Template:Egypt Governorates Map, but it seems that template is missing two governorates: Helwan Governorate and 6th of October Governorate. Can You fix this? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the line between the names of Cairo and Giza should not be there.
Could you also upload yout great map "EgyptGovernorates.png" to commons for being used in other wikipedias ? If you agree, thanks. And congratulations for this great map and template. --Llimona (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an3 report[edit]

here. nableezy - 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in coptic cross image[edit]

I noticed that you added coptic writing to the coptic cross image you uploaded for the copts template. what does it mean ? --George (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it on google and it looks like it means Egyptian christians (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think this should be added the picture since it's not part of the coptic cross and it's not part of the liturgy. --George (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it before because I don't have a coptic font on my comptuer. I still think you should remove it (at least from the coptic cross image) because even though it describes copts in the coptic language it's not known outside 3 pages on the internet (according to google) and one of them is a forum thread where a member translated it to coptic to describe himself because he doesn't like the word "copt".

If you're not convinced, I still think it should be in a separate image added to the template above the cross so that the cross can be used in other articles alone. --George (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in your userspace[edit]

Hi. I have reverted you last edit to you Tintin-userbox. Per our non-free content policy, WP:NFCC, criteria nine, we don't use any image that is copyrighted and has not been released under a free license, in userspace. Rettetast (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is clear on this. I asked for intervention from someone else at WP:ANI#Non-free image at User:Lanternix/Userboxes/Tintin. Rettetast (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the images from your Tintin userbox and your Asterix userbox. Per Wikipedia's policy on non free content, fair use images, like the ones which I removed can only be used in article space, since doing otherwise would be contrary to Wikipedia's goal as a free encyclopedia. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


هيا الصوره اللى كانت فصفحة المصريين راحت فين؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.204.117 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi =- I've deleted File:AsterixSmall.jpg and File:TintinSmall.jpg as they are derivative works rather than entirely self created. As copyrighted images they cannot be used in userspace - Peripitus (Talk) 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by the way...[edit]

Since you are so much into Coptic stuff... Let's say I'd want to learn the very basics of Coptic... any good book you know? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means I am interested if there is a book that I could fit into my schedule. :) I'm just asking... thought you had some recommendations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll check it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Your signature shows up as gibberish boxes on my browser. I have a lot of fonts and character sets installed, so probably most other users can't read your signature either. This can make it difficult for users to identify and communicate with you, so please consider changing your signature to either use a more common font, or not to use these special characters. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th revert at Arab Christian[edit]

Please self-revert your last edit as this is the fourth time in 24 hours that you have removed information regarding the number of Egyptian Christians from the article Arab Christian. I understand that you do not believe Egyptian Christians are Arab, but many sources and editors disagree with you. If you do not self-revert, I will have to report you for edit-warring. Tiamuttalk 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, I have reported you here. Tiamuttalk 22:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I was really pleasantly surprised to see this on your user page! :)
"After what he has witnessed in both virtual and real life, this user has become a firm supporter of the state of Israel"
Do you live in Egypt? Breein1007 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring over the article and discuss the changes being made by User:Medjool at Talk:Coptic identity. If you continue edit-warring, the page may be protected or you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning message at User talk:Medjool as well. Remember that it takes (at least) two editors to war. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Lanternix! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 972 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Hani Azer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Youssef Sidhom - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File permission problem with File:Maghagha.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Maghagha.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. MBisanz talk 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi i noticed you've been trying to fight the POV of that article from many editors who are clearly biased, ive added a section with sources on the lebanese perspective of the Arab Idenity (for and against). Ive also suggested the name be changed. Since you seem to know alot and source well i wonder could help create a bit Egypt's viewpoint of the Arab identity and what is the viewpoint there like I have Lebanon, it would give the article more neutrality and less POV from arab nationalists. take care and good work so far.Miss-simworld (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

They tried to edit alot of what I wrote out but i added sources and even now there is racist arabist who said i was you under a sock account LOL arguing with me over that section because he wants it out the article go on discussion part under Vandalism.Yeah I am 1/4 Egyptian I love Egypt but I hate the politicians and I hate Pan-Arabism it's racist and a cheap form of Islamism. Has comitted Cultural genocide in many countries and silenced free-thinking ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt of the racism of Pan Arabism, I just added there a phrase by an Egyptian writer that wrote: "like Pan Islamism, Pan Arabism is an exclusive ideology". The recent intra-racism between Algeria & Egypt (for example) at the recent games, shows again that Pan Arabism is more of "pure supremacy" anti non-Arab than (fake dream of) "unity".

Toothie3 (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL[edit]

sock claims have been proven false :)


get check my recent edits on the section, that guy is trying to act as if he cares about imparitiality by edit warring when the truth is he wants to whole thing deleted. also see the quotes I added which ARE well sourced word to word LOL hahahaha they are gonna hate it but it's 100% true. I bet you they are going to come it with a reason to delete that♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

intresting article!! could you send me the link to the original site link? thanks it true what it says it is racism the worse kind i have ever seen, even if I was to find out that I was descended from an Arabian tribe (which is unlikely) that converted to Christianity I would never accept Arabism because today it's meaning is simple = islamism and excepting that Islamic culture is dominant to all. There is NO secular arabism that truely exists. It's a myth and a lie. Pan-Arabism is the Arab Nazism Germany was only able to flourish when that totalitarian and racist ideology was banished and abandoned it can only be the same for the middle east. Without it you will see more people being able to express and think for themselves and accept indiviuality and cultural/racial diversity and ofcourse minorities would be better off.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some more[edit]


THANKS[edit]

Merci Kteer for the gift :) I think I should do more Egypt Articles, just like the Lebanese ones they seem to be hijacked by Pan-Arabists. Need help with finding sources dont hestitate to ask for my assistance. I am currently working on the Koura & Amioun article cleaning them up. Alot of Lebanese articles need clearing up.

Pan-Arabism[edit]

Instead of editing my userpage could you please address the issues I raised with the sources you reintroduced into the article? nableezy - 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your great work on Pan Arabism, true history is extremely important, like the Mufti's involvement in Pan-Arabism (among aother things...). PS Coptic, Arab Christians are/were victims of racism of Pan Arabism forcible Arabization. BTW, I think there's a mispelling of the word "Christians" in number 19 on this page.

Toothie3 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent editing for the Pan Arab article[edit]

The mufti hitler photos were very relevant and I am sure despite that it will still be rejected by pan-arabists as unreliable to link the their cause nazism. new article to watch Nasserism no sources only POV by pan-Arabists and excludes the fact he was racist he is accused of destroying Egyptian society.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Resolved

An issue you have been involved in has been brought to AN/I. You can see this here nableezy - 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disregard the message above, I have adviced Nab to take this matter to WP:DR instead, hope you guys can be civil and work things out with the inputs/comments from other uninvolved third-party volunteer editors on WP:RFC. Cheers! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More complaints by Nableezy[edit]

go a thread here ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci[edit]

go on the pan-arabism talk page lol nearly every source stated its been labelled unreliable. mon française n'est pas bon mais j'ai besoin de la pratique anyway despite my rusty french which i havent used in a long time.yes this is very cowardly what those pan-arabists did, they didnt even have the face to bring that thread to me personally instead behind my back. THEY are the racists with clear biases and refute it. if you want to converse in french i dont mind i read it well enough its just my writing is poor ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - sorry for the templated message I left here. I use Twinkle, which leaves such messages automatically when a page is nominated for speedy deletion - in this case it was unhelpful. In any case, the speedy was rejected, so the status of this template will be settled at TFD anyway. Robofish (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

Flicked some userboxes from you ;-). Share the same views ...Fyodor7 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for that warning, I see the intimidation by Malik Shabazzz & Nableezy, I wonder why admin. here on wikipedia can not see the transparency of their methods. Malik like Nableezy try to push the MILITANT ISLAMIC POV into the Pan Arabism under guise of "complaints" and abusing "wiki" rules.

Toothie3 (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nag Hammadi[edit]

I'd like to continue working on this article with you but I have to take children to school now & other daily duties. I will mention sources that I think are poor later, regards Glumboot (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply notification[edit]

Hello, Lanternix. You have new messages at RL0919's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Lanternix. You have new messages at RL0919's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Biased Arabic template[edit]

I think it should be kept in userspace (not in mainspace), but I don't really have anything to say beyond what I already said the first time around... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thank Lanternix for a great work.

Geenahs (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Lanternix,

I just wanted to salute your courage regarding the arabic wiki. Best wishes Arthur B (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Oh! I forgot to add that in the arabic wiki itself there is a userbox called "this user opposes the project of egyptian wiki" ويكيبيديون يعارضون مشروع ويكيبيديا مصري" and also another userbox that refers to arabic wiki as "evil conspiracy" هذا المستخدم يعتقد بوجود مخططات شريرة لهدم العربية. I don't know if that can help you in the current controversy. Best wishes again! Arthur B (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The links http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81:%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B9_%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7_%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A[reply]

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81:%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86_%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D9%84%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9

Best wishes Lan Arthur B (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know he even tried to get the title changed again[edit]

He tried to get the title changed again and went on whining to other editors about the sources (yada yada yada), they didnt see what the problem was so now i think he is going to these tatics. Seriously that guy doesnt give up, he must of thought we left the article for good ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days[edit]

  • Hey! thanks for the barnstar you've put on my user page. I noticed it so late. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


May Murr[edit]

LoL this guy is now trying to say May Murr was not invovled with Lebanese nationalism or Phoenicianism. The guy has obviously never heard of her. and he now vandalisng my seciton. check the the talk page. thanks for the info,♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Arabic template DrV[edit]

Hi Lanternix, Just a short note: arguing the way you are in DrV is much more likely to hurt your case than help it. As I agree that the box should be allowed in user space, I just thought I'd let you know. Striking some of your comments might not be a bad way to go, but I'd certainly encourage you to lay off there... Hobit (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably nothing in particular. It just feels like you are getting uncivil. So a lower profile would be a good idea. Hobit (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks[edit]

Yes go on the talk page of the Page you see why it's happened they havent gotten a response to my edits. So they are resorting to these tatics.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Arabic Speaking Christians[edit]

The same guy who tried to get us banned is now deleting sources and trying to undermine the section's credibility.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Another complain from that Q guy[edit]

seriously, how low are they getting, [2]♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CopticCross7Modified.jpg[edit]

  • Hi Lanternix; would you mind uploading to commons , so I can use it on wikipedia masry. Many thanks. --Ghaly (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, i have uploaded it here. --Ghaly (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

offensive jihad[edit]

hey, I'm sort of taking offensive jihad as a personal project, and am really putting some real research and work in to it. If you have input, I would love to hear from you on the talk page, but please do not revert my edits without talking with me, as that causes lots of unnecessary work for the two of us. Maxkbennett (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:FlagOfIsraelWrapped.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FlagOfIsraelWrapped.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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. nableezy - 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Mahmoud Abbas. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See AN3 for a detailed rationale.  Sandstein  14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.  Sandstein  14:33, 26 March 2010 (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).

Lanternix (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

How exactly am I in violation here???? I completely stopped editing as soon as I reached 3 changes on the page Mahmoud Abbas!!! Why are you describing my behavior as disruptive while I was the one asking for arbitration??? How differently should I have behaved??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for a 3RR violation; you're blocked for edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (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.

Lanternix, you may additionally consider yourself blocked for your edit-warring at Copt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as also described at AN3.  Sandstein  17:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW EXACTLY IS THIS EDIT-WARRING???? What's the point of the 3RR rule then? And what's the difference between someone who reverts fewer than 4 times and someone who breaks the rule by repeatedly violating it??? And it's not like I haven't tried to solve the issue on the talk page!!! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EW; all of it.  Sandstein  18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, just to save you the time and energy: 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts. 3RR is a bright line that, when crossed, means edit-warring is going on unambiguously. However, one can edit-war without violating 3RR; for example, you could come in once a day and make the same reversion or revision, and you'd still be edit warring. You really should already know this, given that this is your eighth block for edit warring; you're lucky it's as short as it is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I think people like you should be the last to give advice. While I reverted only 3 times on that article and got 72 hours of block, the other user who reverted 8 times and edit warred with multiple other users on that page only received 48 hours of block (oh, and in spite of the fact that I was the one filing the complaint). I refuse to take advice from anyone who does not treat Wikipedia users fairly, and who clearly sides up with certain users at the expense of others. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, pretend Sandstein didn't say it. Read WP:EW anyway - all of it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks so much, I am still trying to get the point of this guy nableezy (muhammad or whatever) being obsessed in me, or is he behaving that terrible with everyone (off and online...), Can you provide me with some (even a temporary, for confidential purposes) email address? Is it that he just hate the city of Beirut? ps. the copts are the original native indigenous of Egypt! Beyruthi (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Beyruthi! It's nice to hear from you. Unfortunately, people like that user (and a few more) have hidden agendas and have prejudice against anything non-Arab and non-Muslim in the Middle East. His behavior of disruptive editing on the article of Sabra and Shatila massacre vs. Damour massacre is an excellent illustration of his hidden agenda. Unfortunately as well, many admins seem to side with this user's POVs. The problem is that our lobby is not strong enough yet. Unfortunately I'm blocked for a few days, so I won't be able to help much. But I'm always around if you need my help with anything. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

al-Muizz[edit]

thats your 3rd revert. nableezy - 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3#User:Lanternix_reported_by_User:Nableezy_.28Result:_.29 nableezy - 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take into consideration my warning here. You are both lucky; I was rather close to blocking both of you.  Sandstein  20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Bonjourak (as we say in Lebland) :P you haven't been hearing from me because i'm taking a break from wikipedia and i have sadly realized that i can only edit here when i have university projects and nearing deadlines, yesss i'm sick. So i'm staying away for a while. thanks for your message. Eli+ 18:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Copte6.png missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Copte6.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Haruth (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and another 62 related to the Coptic Alphabet. If you are happy for the description to read as the name of the file, or with additional information, let me know and I will be happy to complete that for you. Unless you want to do it your self of course... ;) Best wishes --Haruth (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - just found two coptic crosses too (CopticCross4 and CopticCross7). These will definitely need your input in terms of description. Best wishes --Haruth (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lanternix[edit]

I am trying to get some background on what is going on with Pan Arabism, I saw your edits on the discussion page, let me know on my page if you can or by my email. Regards Rocalisi (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism[edit]

Yeah I agree it should be marged since its basically the same thing the only difference is that Pan-Arabism focuses more on the Geographic aspect in terrirtory claimed.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Coptic Orthodox Churches in the United States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coptic Orthodox Churches in the United States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Lanternix. I noticed lately that you have removed the template of {{Script/Coptic}} [3] of Copt article. putting the template makes the text easily edited & cleaner, instead of <span lang="cop-Copt" xml:lang="cop-Copt" style="font-size:100%;font-family:'Arial Coptic', 'MPH 2B Damase', 'Quivira', 'Analecta', 'New Athena Unicode';">ⲚⲓⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ̀ⲛ̀Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ̀ⲁⲛⲟⲥ<br></span></font> we could simply type {{Script/Coptic|ⲚⲓⲢⲉⲙ̀ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ ̀ⲛ̀Ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓ̀ⲁⲛⲟⲥ}}. Additionally, the template prevents the Coptic text from overlapping with other lines, because it has this code line-height:150%; What do you think? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Hussein[edit]

Taha Hussein is not a notable critic of Islam. We keep people there only if they are so. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic or not (no I dont), I don't see anything at all in his article that suggests he criticized Islam in any major way. If someone says once something like "Islam and democracy are not compatible", that doesn't qualify them to be a notable critic of Islam. If you want this done, add information in his article with a separate topic for criticism of Islam so we can see if he was a major critic or not. Someone strongly "secular" is also not necessarily a notable critic of Islam. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respond here before you add his name back and respond to the above. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then work on his articles and let us know WHY or HOW he is a notable critic of Islam and add that information in his article. Once you do that, you can add his name to the notable critics. If you do it right now, its no different than adding George Bush to the template. If you had read the text in the template it said you can only add notable critics of Islam, not just any Tom Dick and Harry. We must be be able to see plainly why that person is in the template. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I have taken part on talk here. Why arent you giving me the evidence for Taha Hussein being a notable critic of Islam? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 17:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look we're working together not against each other. When people click on Taha's name from that template (Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar), they would expect to see why he's a notable critic of Islam and why his name should appear along side Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (people who have been strongly critical of Islam in a big way and their bio pages tell that; its as if thats all they are known for) and so on. If that information is not there in Taha's article, thats not good, do you get it. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Governance map of Egypt[edit]

I have used one of your maps in an illustration for a photo book I made about Upper Egypt. More info here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VdHamer (talkcontribs) 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did you create File:AlexandriaMap1.jpg yourself? I noticed that the file page doesn't give an exact source (nor does it specifically say that you created it). If you didn't create it yourself, could you explain where it came from? Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Copts section[edit]

Please discuss your reverts of my edits at Talk:Egypt#Removal_of_Persecution_of_Copts_section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minya[edit]

Hi, now that Minya is a disambiguation page, could you help us clean up its incoming links per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Most of them were from templates, which has been taken care of already by other users. Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is a big help. Thanks, --JaGatalk 19:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

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. nableezy - 01:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advise[edit]

Hi, Lanternix, here's an advise for you. When you edit Egypt you did not add any references. You may consider taken some references from this article Nag Hammadi massacre and adding them to Egypt. Please feel free to ask me, if you do not know how to add references. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look much better now. I do not believe somebody could claim it is not sourced anymore. Best wishes, and please feel free to ask if you need some help.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I requested clarification on the article's talk page and after instead of answering me Nab came to my own talk page to threaten me I filed AE here. But here's one more advice for you. I do believe that both massacres should be talked about in Egypt (maybe the text you added should be shorten a little bit), and I do believe the sources you used are reliable ones, but I also believe that instead of edit warring we all should discuss it on the article's talk page and to find a compromise. I hope Nableezy could explain why he is not happy with the sources. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is a clear pattern of conduct.

You are warned to avoid edit warring, tendentious editing, and other disruptive conduct. Please reconsider your editing approach. If you have disagreements, please utilize dispute resolution. If you have a concern and you know your edit will be controversial, raise it on the talk page for discussion. If you feel that you cannot restrain yourself on an article or topic, please walk away from it. Failure to heed this advice may result in blocks or other editing restrictions.

Will you break this pattern? Will you avoid edit warring in the future? --Vassyana (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lanternix. You have new messages at Vassyana's talk page.
Message added 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I accidentally clicked the link above the one I wanted in my watchlist and rolled back an edit of yours. Put it back as soon as I realised. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=rollback&from=Elen+of+the+Roads&token=9eaf6705435969f6441856af892480cd%2B\] I do apologise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia[edit]

The previous user Maphobbyist is right: Bolivia has indeed abolished Roman Catholicism as a state religion and is now a secular state after the approval of the new constitution in 2009.

Bolivia has abolished Roman Catholicism as a state religion and is now a secular state after the approval of the new Constitution of Bolivia in 2009. In Article 4 it stipulates that the state and religion are independent from each other (Original in Spanish: “El Estado es independiente de la religión.”).

See the Constitution of Bolivia on this: Text of the 2009 Constitution (PDF)

User talk:Saguamundi

Armenia[edit]

Armenia (like Cyprus), does not have a state religion or state church, but still gives official recognition to the Armenian Apostolic Church as a national church

Armenia (like Cyprus), does not have a state religion or state church, but still gives official recognition to the Armenian Apostolic Church as a national church – a status just like in Scotland with the Church of Scotland. There is no single provision that provides for the establishent of a state religion or church, in the current Constitution of Armenia.

See: Wikisource:Constitution of Armenia

User talk:Saguamundi

Jesus[edit]

NPOV demands we include all significant views. Islamic views are significant, and a paragraph detailing them hardly violates undue weight. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed it. I rolled back my roll back so your edit is restored. Sorry, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "Jesus" (paragraph "Islamic Views") without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. My edit/content is relevant with the title of paragraph that is "Islamic Views" about Jesus. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Zubair71 | Talk 15:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Muhammad[edit]

Was there any particular reason for this revert? Planuu (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was adequately explained in the edit summaries. What is there that you're not able to understand? Feel free to respond here. Planuu (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm sure you can answer this question: where has he been criticized for those particular hadith? Right now only primary sources are referenced, which means no critic has been explicitly mentioned. Surely that would be necessary in an article entitled Criticism of Muhammad. Planuu (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "references" you added are a complete joke. Not only that, but they are self-published and not even noteworthy in violation of WP:SPS of WP:RS. Furthermore, some of them don't even confirm some of the interpretations of the hadith, as the hadith aren't even mentioned in the sources! For example, answering-islam, which isn't a reliable source, doesn't contain the two hadiths that follow. Please put a bit more effort into finding reliable sources. Thanks for the warning about 3RR, but you've already violated it. Planuu (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So because you, as an individual, can't be bothered by reading WP:RS (particularly WP:SPS), I need to ask the entire community of editors to review sources at WP:RSN. Is that what you're saying? I don't think that's necessary. WP:SPS is very clear on the sources you've used. Planuu (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  16:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The other user has also been blocked. See this ANI thread for details.  Sandstein  16:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon your return, please reconsider this advice. I hope the holidays are treating you well otherwise and that you are enjoying festivities and cheer. Be well. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2010 (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).

Lanternix (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This is completely unfair! After having been blocked with the other user for claimed "edit warring", and in spite of the fact that I was blocked for 1 entire month while the other user was only blocked for 1 week, that same other user involved in the issue was unblocked today!!! The reasoning for the unblock were completely erroneous including a claim that the user was reverting dubious and completely unreferenced material (I would LOVE to see what material was completely unreferenced!) or that user never broke the 3RR rule. The unblock reasoning further contained vague assumptions rather than fact, such as should be considered and whether to consider!!! While I was initially ok with my block and did not complain, in spite of the unfairness of the block time in both case, I am now requesting to be unblocked because the exact same reasons for unblocking User:Nableezy apply in my case, namely I was reverting dubious material, I was restoring referenced material, and I never broke the 3RR rule! λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you have taken the above advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before making an unblock request then you will have read WP:NOTTHEM. Unblock requests need to address the reason for your unblock, and any that don't are very unlikely to be considered. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2010 (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.

Excellent! Which basically means I am being blocked for the exact same reasons another user was blocked then unblocked by a different admin. Sounds extremely fair to me! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is following this, please ask User:Planuu to please stop Wikihounding me. When an uninvolved and unbiased admin responds to my unblock request, I'll be more than happy to address the nonsense the user is bringing up. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This about covers why I didn't consider your block problematic; at this point another admin has declined your unblock request already because of the nature of it. Note that you don't have a current unblock request; you would need to make another, this time taking into account WP:NOTTHEM. Rd232 talk 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please acept my condolences[edit]

Hello Lanternix, I just was horrified by the news from the city you live in, I mean this horrific attack during New Year Mass. I hope you and yours are well. I know, it might be a bad timing, but I still would like to wish you a Happy New Year. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Coptic alphabet[edit]

Hi, I see that my timing is impeccable.

The more productive the editor, the more likely to get blocked, isn't that the general rule of Wikipedia?

I happen to have noticed that you created all of the images on the Coptic alphabet page, Libyan alphabet to be specific.

I think that the special text notice for Coptic could use a better, clearer image.

I was going to use one of your images, but the resolution is not good enough. Too many jaggies.

I was hoping that you would pick an image you particularly like and do a custom, higher resolution version that would look good in the template.

I hope your blocking matter gets resolved. Varlaam (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy by country[edit]

Hi, have a look at your map of orthodoxy by country, you have to remove if you want European Turkey from the dark blue teritorry, beacause the population there is 95% muslim. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.207.51 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MaysoonGhatas.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MaysoonGhatas.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:StMina4.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:StMina4.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:SaintVerena.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SaintVerena.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:StAthanasius4.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:StAthanasius4.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:SaintPishoy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:SaintPishoy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:StDemiana4.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:StDemiana4.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArabicWikiIsBiased.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ArabicWikiIsBiased.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:User created egypt coat of arms.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:User created egypt coat of arms.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coptic Cross Black Small.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coptic Cross Black Small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SaintMauriceDepartureFromEgypt.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SaintMauriceDepartureFromEgypt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CopticCross4.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CopticCross4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ProposedEgyptianFlag.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ProposedEgyptianFlag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BibliothecaAlexandrinaInside.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BibliothecaAlexandrinaInside.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:StanleyBridge.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StanleyBridge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NagHammadiFuneral.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NagHammadiFuneral.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PopeNagHammadi.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PopeNagHammadi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:StMarcCote3.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:StMarcCote3.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger nomination[edit]

Template:Coptic Popes is nominated to merge with Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Life in Country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:2006 Cup of Nations in Cairo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Coptic flag) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Coptic flag, Lanternix!

Wikipedia editor Xaosflux just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

ancient page, mark reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Xaosflux's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Template:Egypt governorates labelled map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article Paoni 10 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable, the one source didn't even mention the topic (and has been removed)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]