User talk:Lobojo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Chocolatepizza (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChocolatepizza&diff=172213914&oldid=172204041 where you referred to me as a bunch of monkeys, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Where did I break that rule?Lobojo (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you have misocunted, I only reverted that gyu three times, so unblock me please. In any case, I was editing the article in the best possible faith as you are aware, and he was making it impossible by rubbing out my changes wholesale and without explaination. So every time I had start from the beggining. Lobojo (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the diffs provided in this report, there were 4 reversions. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits like that makes it impossible for an editor to improve articles. He offered no explaination as to why he reverted my edits completly three times, despite my polite requests.Lobojo (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that article right now as you can see. Lobojo (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a brief look over the editing history of the article and I could only see three reverts. Perhaps this could be checked? Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, the report clearly shows 4 reversions. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report may do, but many 3RR reports are mistaken. Lobojo has made a lot of individual edits to the article. His first edit to the article is not a revert but an edit. Look at the article history and count the number of times another editor intervenes, and Lobojo reverts them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the edits again, and he did violate 3rr as there are 4 reverts within 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there are not! You have been scammed there are only three reverts, unless you include my original changes reverts, which you do not, since I had never edited the article. If there was only me and chocolatepizza, how could I have violated 3rr if he didnt, when I edited first? DOn't you see? Lobojo (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be the one that made the version that you reverted to for your first revert to be counted as a revert. Since you did revert to a previous version, no matter who wrote it, it is considered to be your first revert. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What areyou talking about? I didn't revert to a previous version!Lobojo (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did, partial reverts are considered to be reverts. Please review the report linked above for all the diffs. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revents - what are you talking about. The diffs are a crock, the first one is clearly just an edit. Lobojo (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be reasonable and unblcock me, I have clearly been acting entirely in good faith while chocolatepizza has behaved badly, How can the first diff be a revert!!! My name is on both columns! Lobojo (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the edit history, you will see that I made edits to the article,, one of which is the first diff. Then the guy reverted me thrice, and as I was trying to improve the article, and he wouldn't explain himself, i reverted him back thrice. So I am not quilty, quite clearly. And if I am, the other guy (who nominated me) certainly is! Yet you havn't blocked him. Lobojo (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo, based on the edit history, Chocolatepizza did not violate the 3rr rule. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he did! I'm saying that since he didn't I didn't. I only made three-reverts. I wouldn't have even done that had he been more reasonable, but I really wanted to get on with improving the artcile, and his instant erasure of my many edits without comment made that imposible. YOU SEE as Sam Blacketer points out, you are mistaken. Please undo the block.Lobojo (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three reverts, this is a crock, a game that this guy is playing. Unblock me now please, or give me a link to appeal this. Lobojo (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Gafni, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Mordechai Gafni satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mordechai Gafni during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Tendler, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Aron Tendler satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Aron Tendler during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you engaged in a personal attack, calling me too lazy to check the references, as well as an "academic infant". Searching for your refs is not my obligation. It is your obligation to give enough material according to WP:REF so they can be checked. Here you accuse me of saying you falsified the refs, when I never said anything of the kind. I would advise you in the strongest possible terms to read our policies here about civility and personal attacks, since you seem to be violating them without being aware of it. Jeffpw (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tendler Aron.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 08:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this message was both highly uncivil, an attack on my character, and violates our guidelines about assuming good faith. I am asking you again to cease and desist with such unpleasantness. If you attack me again in such a manner, I will seek administrative action. Further, I said quite bluntly that I do not want further communication from you about the Aron Tendler article on my talk page. Confine it to the relevant discussion pages. Further communication from you on this issue on my talk page will be construed as harassment and dealt with accordingly.

A tag has been placed on Tzvi Hersh Weinreb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mbisanz (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on the comments at R&I. You will not convince SL that he is wrong, and making it personal will detract from your credibility. He knows what you are saying, this is just tactical. You are making good points, but stay cool. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Postvillecover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Rabbijaffenotw.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is back. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big accusation, if you think something shady is going on with an admin, you may want to start a thread on WP:AN/I. As for my deletion, it was {{prod}}'ed for the required period of time, but that's why we've got speedy restore I suppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment on BLP, you might consider reporting to WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, sometimes you'll get a faster response there for a protection req or something. Mbisanz (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo, why did you remove this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_related_controversies&diff=176515980&oldid=175878797)? I don't understand how this is violating the OR rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.49.24 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did you remove this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_related_controversies&diff=176516209&oldid=176516089)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.49.24 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo, how's this:

Schneerson spoke very highly of the six Chabad Rebbes that preceded him, in particular the sixth Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson.

Schneerson describes certain types of souls who, “it is as before the Tzimtzum, that G-dliness is the simple reality, and they have to exert themselves, and bring proofs that there also is an existence”. He refers to these souls as souls of Atzilus, and uses Moses and the Rebbe’s of Chabad as examples of these souls. ^[1]

Schneerson mentions that the Chabad Rebbe’s “trace their lineage back to the House of King David, of the tribe of Judah,”^[2] and says about his father, Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, that he actually “descends from the offspring of David.” ^[3]

He refers to Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak as “the Nasi (leader) of our generation”, “the only messiah of our generation”, ^[4] and someone “who by his own right is infinitely greater than the people of his generation.” ^[5] He says that God chose and designated Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak to be, “'your judges' and 'your instructors', and the prophet of the generation, who will give rulings and instructions relevant to the avodah of all Jews, and all people in this generation, in all issues of Torah and Mitzvos, and also about general day to day living, and also about 'all your actions'”.^[6]Yonoson3 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Moshe rubashkin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this sort of behaviour. It is disruptive. If you disagree with the conclusion of the AfD, you can file a deletion review. There was clear consensus that the article should not exist. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is "deleted" the consensus is that the content should not be in Wikipedia. The article, and all of its history are thus deleted. On the other hand, if someone thinks that the article should not exist, but it may be ok for the content to be used elsewhere, then "merge" is the way to go. In this case, almost everyone thought the articles should not exist. The only question was whether to close it as a "merge" or delete. No one thought that a dozen articles should be dumped into the main one; rather, some people thought that some of what's there might be usable. From that point, whether to use the content of the "merged" articles becomes a matter for the editors of the main article. If you think some of it should be preserved in the main article, suggest which bits at Talk:Race and intelligence. That's fine. But please respect the opinion of the community. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 "delete and merge" (which isn't allowed, so they should be merges), 4 merges, 2 "keep and merge", which amounts to 12 merges; there are 14 deletes, and 12 keeps (IPs aren't counted). So that's 26-12 against what you are trying to do. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article should be deleted. I have not deleted the article. I'm not trying to "win" anything here, just abide by the will of the community. Guettarda (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You concluded a AfD five weeks ago on a list of articles that had been spun off from the original. The result was split between delete and keep and you reccomende merge. The article was redirected, but the content was never merged (the same applies to all the other articles), and the editors who nominated it are now claiming treating the article as though it had been deleted. The parent artcile is a complete shambles now, because nobody can agree to merge any of the things that you recmmende to be merged back into the article. Thus every section now has a "see main template" that links back to the top of the article.

This is in no way your fault. However, there was no consensus to delete, yet that is the net effect, an extraordianry thing considering the amount of careful sourcing that went into these 8 articles, perhaps 1000 sources. Lobojo (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was merged. That one was merged in this edit. The final result after all the merges is this revision. Not all of the child articles were merged in their entirety; some duplicated parts of each other more or less word for word and I tried to eliminate this duplication where it occurred. Otherwise, the merger was complete.

As you can see from the page history since then, it's been altered somewhat since. Note that it's not necessarily a bad thing that not every single word remains in the article; as I remarked at the time, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an entire library, and the function of our articles is to provide an overview of topics, not to repeat every word that has ever been said about a subject. --bainer (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken the brunt of the beating on Chabad, being called a Nazi (now twice), and getting accused of calling another editor a "bunch of monkeys." That last one got me laughing out loud. Keep up the good work. --Meshulam (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Queen's parade.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Chocolatepizza (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who nominated this photo showed that it came from a blog called "failedmessiah" where it was posted in May. [1]. Is this your blog? If not, did you provide this image to the blog? Several of your image uploads seem atypical for user-authored images. Could you simply clarify whether you, personally, are the photographer? --B (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Moshe rubashkin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Chocolatepizza (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Chocolatepizza (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and realize it might be a problem, you can put the tag {{underconstruction}} at the top. this should give you a week's grace before someone deletes it. Not guaranteed, but usually works--be aware people may jump to delete it if not improved when the 7 days are up.I put one on Tzvi Hersh Weinreb for you DGG (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll delete them. Please be more careful in the future, and if there are any other images with copyright issues, please get them deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked which main article; First do NOT engage in edit warring, what you did is edit warring please revert the reversion you did here, and look at that talk page here for an answer to your question.--Shmaltz (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Naftali Tzvi Weisz, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naftali Tzvi Weisz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Shmaltz (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here about it. Please revert, answer allow for consensuses to be reached then revert if that was consensuses reached. Thank you.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzvi Hersh Weinreb. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shmarya Rosenberg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Shmarya Rosenberg. Chocolatepizza (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

youwill need at least one source talking about his work.DGG (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo,

I don't understand why you removed the stuff about the ushpizzin (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies&diff=180399018&oldid=180379033?

What do you mean "not a soapbox. you need sourced that sat that", I brought a source?Yonoson3 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that there are some extreme BLP issues over at Tzvi Hersh Weinreb. Some sources refuting them, or the elimination of the lines altogether would be most urgently appreciated. Mbisanz (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in for a RFPP semi-protect. really quite unacceptable what their doing there. Mbisanz (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reported this IP 207.237.111.54 abuser for action - hope it helps a bit. docboat (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see that IP has since been blocked. But since we don't like to block IPs (it could be a university or business), semi-protecting the page will just prevent IPs from editing it. The request is still pending, but once it goes through, it should be possible to let the IP block expire in 31 hours, as the blocking admin set it up that way. Mbisanz (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rabbijaffenotw.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any 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. MECU≈talk 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lobojo. The article Babur describes his love for a camp boy in the second quotation in the "Background" section, which is sourced to two different books. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP - Babur's a bit .. tricky. I don't know that the cat belongs, since the quotation sounds more like pederasty. Then again, he wasn't very old when he wrote it, so I don't know. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though he missed it and apologized, he did not reinsert the category. I have handled this administrative detail for him, as well as on several other articles where the material was clearly included and sourced, and the cat inappropriately removed. Jeffpw (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, could you BLP check this article Diane Garnick, a WP:SPA keeps inserting stuff that I think is unsourced BLP, but before I file a BLP/N complaint, I want another check. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent one to you. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Articles under construction belong in your userspace, as in User:Lobojo/Sandbox. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the personal matter, I was involved in the discussion on both articles, so you would need to ask someone else. But my quick personal advice is to let it slide, unless it happens again. DGG (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the king, I can only suggest a RfC on the article, or a RfC on the category. Don't do both--and just do it on the issue of what to include. let me know about it, for you know i agree with you. BTW, I call him James I and VI, but that's the kind of fights that get nowhere. Considering how much he hated Scotland, I wouldn't emphasise that part. If you're interested in him, you might read *

• The Fortunes of Nigel at Project Gutenberg if you havent already done so--but considering the period, it doesn't address the sexuality. Personally, I think he's the kind of guy who would never have actually engaged in sex with his favorites. He wouldnt have taken the chance; history of this sort is mental reconstruction. DGG (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Spinka financial controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinka financial controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your note 11:03, 1 January 2008 in this history I wrote:

"James I fucked the Duke of Buckingham"

Then you replied:

"thats what you say, historians disagree"

Actually, I did not say that. I merely quoted Théophile de Viau (quote), who was in fact a contemporary of James I and wrote that sentence during the reign of James I. --Law Lord (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that James I had sex with men. Read Personal relationships of James I of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Law Lord (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sections mark new discussions. If you want to comment on the discussion about figs, your comment belongs in the discussion about figs. If you want to start a new discussion on another topic, then create a new heading. Do you think everyone's individual comments should have their own heading? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rubenstein keeps moving this." Keeps? You are saying I did it more than once? You have proof of this? Also, I never moved your comments, they stayed where they were I just removed a subheading, once. You are being unfair to me. All I wanted to do was keep a conversation together. You may think I was wrong to do it but my intentions were good. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - I forgot/made a mistake and apologize. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your striking out your last comment - I really didn't mean to upset you and regret it. Perhaps you can make more substantive contributions to the article itself? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was up for deletion two times - maybe even three! - and only recently. It looks like it is going to stay for now. Thee has been a lot of contention over it much of which I do not fully understand. I do not know whether it is meant to be an article on aread where Judaism and Christianity seem to converge but do not, or seem to diverge but do not. Be that as it may, a day or two ago the talk page was largely an argument among three people. I think several new people adding their views is, somehow, an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lobojo, I have suggested that SeanSokandro moves on to work on other articles. I suggest you leave him be for now. Assuming good faith for a moment, I'm sure he will not be back on James I, and if he is, I have no doubt that am administrator will be by shortly to deal with the matter. Best, Gwernol 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lobojo, as you know we have not gotten along in the past, and I disagree with the tag you put on the article. That said, I have restored it, because I think the sockpuppet (and it IS a sock, mark my words) is gaming the system and trying to provoke you into a 3RR violation. If the sock comes back and reinserts it, I invite you to come to my page and we can both replace the tag until discussion ends in consensus. Oh, and I support a checkuser, too, as I think it may be a sock of a banned user. It is just this sort of situation which makes Wikipedia more stressful than it needs to be. Happy New Year. Jeffpw (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not support allowing sockpuppets (if it is one) to game the system. I also disagree with your disputed cat tag, however, we can have our debates, but civil ones, and while WP:AFG. I will support a checkuser also in this case, if that helps. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a section on the talk page. Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Chabad venice.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take it your a zionist then huh? Judging by your history with religious jewish articles, just take a look at the discussion man, if anything it is NOT anti-semitic, ergo it is unfair to suggest this. terrasidius

For the record, I am more of post-zionist, what about you buddy? Are you a zionist pigfucker? Lobojo (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol actually no man, I like Jewish people (some of my favourite people are Jewish) for one thing so im certainly not anti-semitic; but i do happen to beleive that zionists have had and do currently have too much power and influence and by extension have alot of say and sympathy with non jews and with regards to the protocols article; it is clearly NOT anti semitic man, thats certain now wether its a hoax or not is debatable; but thats the point, this article emblazens as "fact" that its anti-semitic, this is wrong. terrasidius

You are like a young George Galloway! Why are you editing from an IP? i don't know what article you are talking about by the way. Lobojo (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks! I was just really quickly editing cus i was eating lunch lol so i didnt bother to sign name or anything but if you know that you know what article im talkin about dont you? here it is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Terrasidius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.126.125 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Seeing as the only people who think that it isn't a forgery are racists and loons we don't need to consider their views in the lede. You don't really think that it is a genuine document do you? Lobojo (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its debatable and thats why I edited out the parts in saying it was and put in "allegedly". Its like saying Mien Kampf is anti-german. but I think its fair to say that there is no conclusive proof either way and that people have to look at the world as it is now and see alot of prominent zionist jews in powerfull positions and with influence in certain governments, and alot of the new "anti-terror" laws coming in mirror the document in question. But in so far as wikipedia as an encyclopedia and a popular one, that articles like this have to be as fair and unbaised as possible, this one isnt and that is quite obvious; and to say that anyone who believes that the protocols are genuine are "racist and loons" is a symptom of this way of thinking. shouldnt the article be presented in a such a way that it lets the reader make up their own mind rather than be confronted with "anti-zionist" "plaigerised" and "forgery" and with as much real evidence from BOTH sides of the argument as can be found? terrasidius 9 January 2008 15:41 (GMT)

No the proof is conclusive, and it is not debatable. Britanica is also a popular encyclopedia and a more reliable and authoritative one and here is their article on it where they call it a - "fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism in the early 20th century" as the first line. The main reason that you shouldn't buy into conspiracy theories is out of self-interest. It damages you when you do - because nobody normal will want to associate with you. That is the biggest risk. Take a step back and you will see, that the kind of company you keep when you believe in this kind of thing is composed of the dregs of western civilisation, radical Islamists, far right neo-nazis, skinheads losers, vagrants, far left splinter groups, Satanistsunreconstructed Stalinists and the French. Is it really worth the pain? Lobojo (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol hey man, i need to go do some work but we can discuss this laters. its been good! :) terrasidius —Preceding comment was added at 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks you are making in your revert summaries show that you have not read the talk page. If you continue edit warring and making statements about IQ vs intelligence as you have done recently, the page will be locked from editing as before. Please read the talk page carefully before making further edits to the article. There you will find an extensive discussion of IQ tests, which at present are the only psychometric means of measurement related to intelligence. Or do have some verifiable academic source that states otherwise? Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the same image twice at Image:Rebbe_on_the_bus.JPG and Image:Rebbe_on_the_bus.jpg each with a different copyright tag. The one with the non free copyright states that it is an ad however it gives the copyright tag for a poster. Which copyright are you claiming? Did you take this image? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it twice by accident. I'm confused how that happened. Resolved I think. Lobojo (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember. I uploaded one, then I realised that I had put the GNU tag by mistake. So I tried to overwrite it because I couldn't find the tag without the drop down list. It seems that I types JPG instead of jpg so I didn't overwrite it, something I didn't notice. Lobojo (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BEISMOSHIACH3.jpg has a copyright tag that you are the copyright holder. You are obviously not the copyright holder of the flyer as you did not make it and it is not representing you. I am removing that tag. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. I think. Lobojo (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tefilat Haderech copy.jpg is tagged with a copyright tag of a flyer which needs "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration", however on Tefilat HaDerech, you wrote as the image caption that this is a card that was given to you at the airport. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a tag on now, as the card was a freeby and constitutes promotoalnal material it should be fine. Lobojo (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images that you uploaded under a Creativ Commons license of 3.0 are in fact licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en which does not allow commercial usage. Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses and this email from Jimbo, these images are to be deleted on sight. For example Image:PoteozAmman.jpg is referenced as to have come from http://www.flickr.com/photos/tierecke/104148502/ On the right side of this image on Flickr there is a section called Additional Information, beneath it there is a link that says Some rights reserved. When you click on that link it brings you http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en which clearly states that it is for non-commercial use only. I will assume Good faith and assume that you made an honest mistake. However as nearly all your images have copyright issues, I will advise you to be super careful before uploading again, as this will get you blocked. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on my talk page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See update on my talk page. 4 of the images were good and were restored. The rest have the non-commercial requirement problem. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert again by adding the anti-war rally poster in the lead. It's been contested about belonging in the lead by numerous editors. There is enough controversy regarding the poster anyway, for it to be the lead image. So, I moved it further down into the article as a compromise. Thanks. ←Gee♥Alice 04:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BEISMOSHIACH3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobojo, I notice that you have added yourself as an involved party in the dispute over the Zombie image, but haven't agreed to mediation. I just wanted to make sure that this was intentional (i.e., that you are opposed to mediation). Cheers,--G-Dett (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous remarks. I do think it would be interesting to open discussion on the BLP Noticeboard. Would you like to start the topic? And I'll take a look at how it goes! Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BEISMOSHIACH3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any 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. Mr.Z-man 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BEISMOSHIACH3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Baranes flyerpic.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any 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. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chocolatepizza (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your 15:56, 23 January 2008 edit at WLS-TV seems to have produced a citation error. Can you correct this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Mishflag.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Mishflag.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Oren neu dag (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lobojo:

As you will recall about two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."

In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:

February 9, 2008
Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review my recent edits to the Chabad page and chime in with your thoughts? Abe Froman (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than a month since mediation was requested so I am asking everyone to re-confirm their intent to participate in the mediation. Please stop by and indicate whether or not you still wish to be involved. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Lobojo.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Gimmel tamuz 770.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

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 [[ Talk:Image:Gimmel tamuz 770.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:PoteozAmman.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [3], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

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 [[ Talk:Image:PoteozAmman.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Moshe_Rubashkin about an article that you edited. Please, could you go there and comment on the situation? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yedioth_Ahronoth I have notice you wrote there comment and Shuki disagree with you.Well I agree with you.Yedioth Ahronoth is NOT tabloid.Please come back and together we can improve this article.87.69.77.82 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobo: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you add that Liz Leyden paragraph to Menachem Mendel Schneerson again, without first gaining consensus on the talk page discussion, I'll have to report you for disruptive editing. Likewise, you shouldn't just be repeating your edits that were undone, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of debate on the Rabbi Elazar Shach page lately (check out talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elazar_Shach). Do you think you can come over and help straighten things out? Yonoson3 (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matis Weinberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matis Weinberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rob (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Mishflag.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned raster image that was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster^talk 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]