User talk:Yas121

Welcome!

Hello, Yas121, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! GabrielF 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rushdie

the novel is not just about the namegiving satanic verses episode but presents a version of the early years of islam. are you saying that rushdie based all of this on the writings by ibn ishaq (could well be), did rushdie say so or are you just guessing? --trueblood 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-arab cat

oh, stop injecting POV. There's already enough of it in the Kahane and Goldstein articles - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is why the heck I reverted your edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-word it?

Not sure I understand - I removed the information because it violated policy. How can one re-word themselves out of that? Please see the article talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas

I like your work on Hamas, there seems to be a POV effort to only list countries which list it as a terrorist organization. Deuterium 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I am interested in helping on this article. I can be reached more directly at dnkrumah@bureau24.net Da'oud Nkrumah 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

For repeated disruptions, as threatened. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to continue to engage in Talk, that's fine, but beware of edit-warring - if your position is in consensus, it will eventually be changed back by others. Tewfik^Talk 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? it's my talk page I'll do what I like Yas121 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, Wikipedia Talk page policy. OK then I won't do what I like Yas121 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. You are entitled to do whatever you want with your talk page, except perhaps blanking blocks & admins' notice. There have been precedents, this page is your own, you may do whatever you want to with. Nice Russian boy has been totally unable to point out to you some real policy, there aren't any!

3RR on Hamas

Yas121, you have violated WP:3RR on Hamas. Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check again! I didn't rv anything. The UN, Russia etc discussion is on-going and I said I wouldn't on the Talk page. I only added a new edit "or Palestinian uprising against Israel's occupation in the West Bank and Gaza." how is this violating the WP:3RR?

Complex reverts count. First you reverted in the stuff about the UN, then you reverted in the stuff about the Intifadeh. 4 reverts in all. Please stop gaming, and revert yourself, as I am about to report you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not Rev the Intifada bit as I wrote that myself! and yes I said I wont Rev the UN part and I haven't Yas121 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted in the UN stuff, and you wrote the intifada bit then reverted it in 3 more times as well. 3RR is about reverting anything on the page, not just one specific section. The clock is ticking here, please revert yourself now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you around Yas! Don't bother trying to understand what's wrong with the admins, the problem isn't them, but the sheer number of pro-Israelis editors who have no respect for others standpoint. Misunderstanding on both sides is probably one of the main reason for this enduring conflict... Pay no heed to Jayjg's rhetorics, he's just intent on portraying any movement opposed to his POV as evil terrorists. There are more hawks than anything else on this Wiki, it is to us to remain here & try to keep the balance however we can... Salam alekum, slama!

Anti-semitic people

Hey Yas, I believe she calls Al-Qa'eda terrorists "ragheads", not Muslims in general. In any event, I don't believe we should have a cat for Anti-semitic people, and I challenge you to find a single instance when I added it to anyone's biography! Now please drop the matter. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies CR, consider the matter dropped. If only you had made yourself clearer in the first place instead of just blocking me! I also voiced my opinion below. --Yas121 22:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people

They can't delete the Category:Anti-Semitic people

Your vote is requested: [1]

ArbCom case

Yas, only arbcom members can vote on proposed decision cases, so I have removed your votes at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry didn't know. Yas121 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being ganged up on?

You may be asking yourself why you are being ganged up on, why many people keep coming after you and none comes to your defense, or maybe one person does in a weak fashion for a short while. The reason is because the people who run Wikipedia have a Zionist point of view, and everyone who does not share that point of view has eventually come to realize this, or if not realizing it quits in frustration. No one is helping you because the people who run Wikipedia have driven off or kicked off everyone who would have agreed with you.

Jayjg has been removing your edits. Jayjg removes the edits of anyone who does not follow the Zionist party line. Here is some background on Jayjg and Wikipedia - Jimbo Wales runs Wikipedia. In terms of site operations, under him is the Arbitration Committee. Two years ago there were elections to the Arbitration Committee and Jayjg got no votes. So a few months later Jimbo appointed him, without a vote, to the Arbitration committee. So a few months later there was another vote for the ArbCom (the Arbitration Committee). Due to massive opposition to Jayjg (over 100 people voted against him), he did not make the cut of people with enough vote percentage to get into the Arbitration Committee. Guess what? Jimbo *still* appointed him to the Arbitration Committee again. There was another appointee, but he is a technical person and was only appointed to make running the site smoother, he was uncontroversial. So the only person who was given these powers against the democratic wishes of the majority of people who use Wikipedia was a Zionist POV-pusher. Which shows you how important the person running Wikipedia consider this point of view in his encyclopedia.

I would suggest you visit Wikipedia Review to see some views of Wikipedia which the Wikipedia cabal doesn't control and can't censor. That's why admins blocked the ability for people to create a page Wikipedia Review and why there has been such a battle to remove any mention of the existence of Wikipedia Review from Wikipedia.

I would also suggest checking out alternative wiki encyclopedias like Anarchopedia, Democratic Underground, dKosopedia and Red Wiki. I share your views, but they are obviously not welcome here, so why keep banging your head against a wall until you get thrown off or frustrated and quit? From the history of me seeing this happen though, I predict you will keep wasting time here in an exercise of futility for several months and then finally quit in frustration, going on to other things. This is what happens with most people. I myself am building up these alternative wikis, sometimes post on Wikipedia Review, and check in here every once in a while although I know it's pointless. For example, I mentioned how the IDF kidnapping of two Palestinians in Gaza was the reason for the capture of two IDF soldiers in Lebanon, but just as the corporate US media is Zionist, so are the people who run Wikipedia and they want to make sure that things like this are known by as few people as possible.

I am just passing you this note so that you know you're not alone in this, although on Wikipedia itself you are alone, since all of us are on Wikipedia Review or one of the alternative wikis. Here you just can waste your time getting edits reverted by people and no one will help you since they've all been kicked or driven off. If you choose to continue to waste your time that's your choice, it's as futile as a Palestinian throwing a rock as a tank. Ruy Lopez 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't buy into the negative attitude of Ruy Lopez. Your participation is welcome here. There is by no means a domination by "Zionists" as he would have it. Just normal disputes between pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli points of view, both of which we want to be fairly represented. Fred Bauder 04:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I want! in fact to be perfectly honest even 60/40 in favour of pro-Israelis is fine...actually right now 70/30 even sounds good! But it's all down to the Admins in the end, there's nothing I can really do if they are (and my God are they! as far as Hamas is concerned) pro-Israeli. All I'll get is BLOCKED in a useless attempt to make Wikipedia Non-American/Israeli friendly. Yas121 04:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... yes... a pint of palestinian blood would be a fine dessert right now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are upset because of the bombing in Israel, understandable...believe it or not many non-Israelis are too BUT you drink a pint and then they drink a pint back and then you drink a pint and then...??!!?? is this a competition for who runs out of blood 1st? Don't forget there are at least 10x more dead Labanese civilians! Yas121 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to block that crasy Russian I guess, but try to discuss rather than edit war. And of course avoid personal attacks. Fred Bauder 04:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever launched any kind of a personal attack against someone, don't really see a reason to. And yes edit wars...well it's not much of a war really I change or add something new to show there are other views in the world, whether right or wrong, within few mins it's Rev back, I reword same thing 3rd time same thing and I'm threatened with Block under WRR or 3RR or something. Anyway thank goodness for that POV banner! Yas121 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I feel perhaps an example would better serve. OK Look @ this Baruch Goldstein, an US-Israeli Zionist mass murderer and terrorist who in 1994 opened random fire with a machine-gun on Muslim worshipers in a mosque during Friday prayers murdering 29 and injuring 125. He gave no reason for his actions, no apparent motive. Sick and despicable, correct! almost the entire world including Israeli government, Jewish groups etc strongly condemned his actions. OK now look at his Wikipedia entry he has an entire separate section labelled Supporters!! where justifications for his actions are stated. There is plenty of info and detail about the violent retaliations from the Palestinians and other Muslims, even in New York! that took place afterwards. Now look again at Hamas, it has millions of supporters around the world (Yes and critics!) is under military occupation, many of it's supporters claim it's a legitimate resistance movement...The word supporters does not even appear on Hamas' entire article let alone their views! There is no mention of the violent retaliations by the Israelis the collective punishment of the Palestinians after Hamas attacks etc etc

PS. Incidentally I was banned for 24hrs for trying to add Baruch Goldstein to the category anti-Arab people!

PPS. I do strongly disagree with having a Category anti-semitic, anti-arab people etc it's a joke! I was just trying to make a point.

PPPS. Anyway, you can see why some people may see Wikipedia to be very pro-israeli instead of being the NPOV entity which it claims to be.

Glad you see that the Categories anti-semitic, anti-arab people might cause some trouble. Good point about Baruch Goldstein but I think there is ample material throughout Hamas about their support, although I suppose a separate section about their mass appeal might be appropriate, Fred Bauder 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I said "I would suggest you visit Wikipedia Review to see some views of Wikipedia which the Wikipedia cabal doesn't control and can't censor. That's why admins blocked the ability for people to create a page Wikipedia Review and why there has been such a battle to remove any mention of the existence of Wikipedia Review from Wikipedia." To show you how obsessed the Zionazis who extort a billion a year in tribute from US taxpayers to fund their murderous settlement and wars are to control all news and discussion, my link to the Wikipedia Review's web page was removed, from an (unelected) ArbCom member no less. Anyhow, if you're curious what the web page is that the power-mad Wikipedia cabal can't control, go to Criticism_of_Wikipedia#External_links and look for the link for Wikipedia Review.

Tally-ho, Ruy Lopez 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't delete Ruy's rant; I just hope you give us a fair chance and don't get sucked away. I've gone head to head with Ruy Lopez a time or two. I don't remember the exact details, but suffice it to say, he fights hard for his point of view. What I want to tell you is that the best of the Wikipedia editors will fight hard for fair representation of all points of view. And that you are welcome here. I have looked at your edits and they seem more than reasonable. Fred Bauder 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I have not yet made up my mind about Wikipedia. I try not to judge people/things too quickly. You have mentioned that Wikipedia editors will fight hard for fair representation of all points of view, but I'm sorry to say that I've not come across many of those Admins. I'm glad you took the trouble to read my edits and consider them reasonable but as you can see I've been Blocked yet again for my efforts to make Wikipedia a little fairer in the eyes of non-US-Israeli crowd (I'm sure you are aware that it is a BIG crowd and can not be ignored). I think it's perfectly normal that Wikipedia leans more towards the West, that is expected and accepted, but to have no regard for the views of "The other crowd" is just unacceptable for a "fair and balanced" encyclopedia. I hope Wikipedia "Fair and balanced" doesn't go down the same path of Fox news "Fair and Balanced". Once again I must use an example..."...Hamas are listed as a terrorist organisation by xyz countries.." "...Hamas are considered a legitimate resistance movement in the eyes of its supporters.."[2] We may not agree with the 2nd statment but we can't consider that it's a POV that can't be used [3] when the 1st is considered FACT. They are both facts of equal weight. Open to all to edit and contribute were the words that 1st attracted me to wikipedia BUT so far all I have seen is Open to all to edit as long as the Admin's agenda is followed who is judge and jury and executioner/blocker. Surely wikipedia must have checks and balances against this sort of thing, against one admin (User:Jayjg) simply sitting there and Rev everything from any user that doesn't follow his POV?

--Yas121 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yas! See 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict if you have time, I've got my edits reverted & I'm sure you would agree with them (mainly including the 1000 civilians 1/3 children dead according to Lebanon and using the term "war"). About Ruy Lopez, well, if he had stayed here, maybe it would have done one more editor who could stop this and that. Cheers! PS: I've also tried earlier this year to negotiate on Hamas, with some other cooperative editors (I'm sure you noticed who). It was a failure because the Israeli hawkish POV obviously outnumbers us. However, I wonder, since sides are so clear cut (to many editors' despite), if we couldn't first try to agree on an intro between ourselves "reasonable editors". It would be much easier if we could get several contributors stand by the same intro. Maybe we should make a draft or something. And then we could propose it on the talk page: like this we could propose what is a NPOV intro. What do you think? Tazmaniacs 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yas, I'd just like to tell you that you have my support and sympathy. If ever you find yourself alone in a debate on a small article, just notify me and, if I agree, I might help put forward your point of view and support your arguments. Too often, opponents say we are on our own- but if there is such a significant minority, it cannot be ignored. Yours, Tanzeel 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

I have two problems with your edit to the current events page. Number 1, your edit summary was "fprmatting." Adding a story is clearly not formatting. Number 2, the story that you added is purely speculation on the part of BBC and is therefore not worthy of the Wikipedia current events page, where only major news events are noted. I am sure this was an honest mistake, but please do not re-add this story and try to keep your edit summaries as precise as possible. Thank you. Respectfully, Republitarian 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the info. But normally I just paste the summaries from the news sites rather than adding my own or editing them, so in this case it was exactly as BBC reported it. I've seen too many people do that here, formatting stories to hightlight their POVs.

--Yas121 13:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your query. I went to move the Al-Jazeera story from Saturday to Friday which is the day it occurred. I had earlier put stories from Thursday into Friday. I then noticed a link to another story about Hezbollah so I merged the two. I have again moved the story from Saturday into Friday as that is the day that Hezbollah buried its dead. Sorry about the confusion. Capitalistroadster 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas

I appreciate the kind words. I stumbled on Hezbollah on accident really. I normally edit articles like Ogham inscriptions and rune stones.. :) Mceder 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think about this

[4] Think hard about how that kind of editing would look to a third party. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that makes sense. Not in Palestinian Political violence then NOT in Zionist political violence. Yas121 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Sheik Ahmed Yassin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sheik Ahmed Yassin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish terrorism

reason was given. the problem was with the redirect and that was fixed ! The other editor will agree to this. Please follow up on history before reverting. Amoruso 21:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing controversial articles

Hi Yas121,

I noticed from your edits to Zionist political violence and from your contribution history that you have an interest in controversial articles. These articles, often more than others on Wikipedia, are subject to the contributors (including your own) point of view. When editing any article on Wikipedia, and in particular these articles, please consider the following:

If you are going to remove something, create a talk page entry and justify it.
Never add anything without a reliable source.
You need to become familiar with the policies and guidelines and always operate within them.
If a particular statement seems dubious, ask for a source within the guidelines of the policy.

I hope some of this helps you and your ongoing contributions. Happy editing!

--Uncle Bungle 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. It seems any article that doesn't follow the Zionist viewpoint is considered controversial Yas121 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Hi, I saw you took a look at the Ahmadinejad page, so I just figured I would fill you in a little on the current situation and ask you to give your opinion. As mentioned by Avi, the current "solution" is to include the "Anti-Semitism" category, which was an idea proposed by Amoruso a while ago but had no support from anyone but him; the only reason it is included now is because of inappropriate administrator action IMO. Anyway, I have proposed an alternative in order to follow wikipedia guidelines as closely as possible and to allow this article to be cleared of never-ending debate: My proposal to resolve the MA anti-semitism debate. I would greatly appreciate if you could weigh in on what you think of that as compared with the current solution. Thank you. Markovich292 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but User:LifeEnemy also agreed with the current compromise. Nowhere is it indicated as a long-term solution. I respectfully request you read over the discussion and refrain from mischaracterizations of both edits and motives. Remember, WP:AGF is just as important as any other policy, and yes, it is a policy, not just a guideline

. -- Avi 07:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said LifeEnemy didn't agree, nor did I say this is a long-term solution. Avi, please see [5]. Markovich292 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding block. Patience is key.

Hi Yas121. I noticed your recent edits to Palestinian Territories such as these [6]. There not that bad -- I think you were actually being accurate. The trick is to not get angry when treated unfairly here at Wikipedia. When others get you bad it serves to discredit your position no matter what it is. Sometimes people will treat you badly to see how you react to it -- its called baiting. Just use the appropriate dispute resolution methods and ensure that people know what is going on. If you are patience others will notice what is going on and intervene. Patience is key. --Ben 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed your edits. You seem to want to designate which parties support which names for the region referred to as "Palestinian territories". It is true that different names are prefered by different groups, and those names are usually leading towards specific solutions they see for the conflict. You might get better success by sourcing who are the supporters of each name rather than singling out one specific name's supporters. I know that the BBC and other news agencies actually have guidelines which they publish on these matters. There are also official names that various governments employ. Such a section would be a useful addition to the page if you can source it completely -- which if you take the time and put in the effort is possible. Such a section may even allow us to settle what is the correct title/name of the article -- we should use the most standard and mainstream name and can rule out using any of the names favored solely by partisans. --Ben 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to do was to make the article better. The Lead was so boring it just listed the 1000s of names for the region...like all other articles, I divided that into a NAME section for people who further want to read about it. I didn't add any names I didn't delete any names. Yas121 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, as is typical, you misrepresent your edits. You didn't just add a "Names" title, you made a bunch of other edits, which were, in fact, the sole reason for your editing the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you typically never discuss any of your Rev. If you really think I made a "bunch" of other eidts why did you not just Rev those? So there is NO REASON for you to REV moving all the NAME entries and puting them into the NAME section! BUT this is exactly what you've done countless times Blanket Rev everything! Yas121 16:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put an extremely POV article on AFD

The article Policide on the Israeli-Arab conflict is so POV that I think it cannot be repaired. Please give your opinion! Count Iblis 13:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that a two month block is excessive. I've spent the past hour looking over your recent contributions and interactions with Jayjg over the past week. However, I do believe a block was merited. Check out Dispute Resulution. Also, I advise you to not make comments such as those mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive142#Incivility_and_threats_from_User:Yas121. By getting angry at others, you are not improving the way others see you in the conflict. People looking into the issue from outside those involved will see you as a name-caller and a troll. I know this isn't true, but your recent behavior makes this appear to be the case. If another admin takes my comment to heart, then hopefully this block can be shortened. Take a week off from Wikipedia. Just forget you even know about the website. Spend some more time with your friends or on a forgotten hobby. It's called a Wiki-Break. Once you've found that you've cooled your head and can discuss this block rationally with others, I believe you could be unblocked earlier. Thanks for listening and I hope to see you constructively contributing soon. Zsinj^Talk 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for considering my appeal. I will take the week off. I really hope after this time my block can be removed or at least shortened. Yas121 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yas

Hi Yas,

I told you back in August that the Zionists would never let you bring balance to articles they're interested in. You wasted three months, and are now banned.

As I said back then, Red Wiki, Red Tellus, Anarchopedia and so forth are not beating the drums of genocide against the Palestinians like Wikipedia does. You've wasted three months of your time, and have nothing to show for it. And I told you so three months ago. Don't you think it's time to stop and consider how you are wasting your energy editing this wiki encyclopedia as opposed to some other one? Ruy Lopez 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas

Hello, I seen your comments on the talk page regarding Hamas. What is going on with the article on Hamas? It seems very biased and it also contains inaccuracies as regards the groups founding. Al Jezeera and other subject matter.Dnkrumah

Al-Jazeera I deleted the Al-Jazeera link because it is an unbalanced anti-Israeli network. They also broadcast beheading videos.

Well keep your POV to yourself and dont do it again! Yas121 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not quite sure what POV you are accusing me of in this article. I simply fixed a wikilink that was formatted zionist entity to zionist entity. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks! It is difficult to edit some of these pieces, since a certain influential advocacy group gives Wikipedia a lot of money so that certain people can have super powers to present a very one-sided and phony view of reality... (see "anonymous" $286,800 donation, vastly larger than any other single donation in the year) But we try! Thanks again!

AfD nomination of Criticism of Judaism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Judaism. 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/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). 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) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cadiz sunset.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cadiz sunset.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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:15, 31 October 2012 (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) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]