User talk:Mor2

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mor2! Thank you for your contributions. I am Shrike and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mor2 - could you please explain your rationale behind this edit? It concerns me for a number of reasons.

First off - disconcertingly - it seems to add material that is not in the cited source. You added the phrase "according to Palestinian sources," but the Reuters article that the sentence used as a source doesn't say 'according to Palestinian sources, civilian houses were hit.' The cited Reuters article just says 'dozens of houses and apartment blocks' were among the 'targets hit so far.' Your edit appears to be trying to push a particular point of view by inappropriately disclaiming well-cited information.

Second off: your edit also seems to misconstrue what WP:SYNTHESIS is. I see nothing inappropriately synthetic in the sentence as it stood before you edited it. The sentence did not inappropriately join statements made in multiple reliable sources to advance a novel argument, which is what WP:SYNTHESIS requires.

I know these edits are a few days old, but I have similar concerns about some of your more recent edits as well, this was just the first one to jump out at me as being really confusing. Would you mind explaining both why you added "according to Palestinian sources" and what exactly you saw as violating WP:SYNTHESIS in the way the sentence originally stood? Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence merged several sources into one. Taking the IDF "number of attacks"(it's actually number of targets, thus number of attacks can be much higher) from the first, using types of attack from the second(with some additions) and adding the list of what was hit from the third(presumably only by IDF). Merged together it implied that the IDF lunched attacks against civilian targets, which was not in the sources(there is a war crime size difference between lunch and hit). To avoid confusion I separated it into two parts according to IDF and Palestinian accounts, this way we see the IDF stated list of targets and what was actually hit.--Mor2 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you felt that the sentence as it stood was weird (especially the point that the number of attacks could be very different than the number of targets,) but I'm still concerned about your phrasing choice. Reuters isn't a Palestinian source, and didn't caveat their statement (that dozens of houses and apartment blocks were hit) with any phrasing like 'according to Palestinian sources.' When we're dealing with facts as reported in reliable sources, it is not customary for Wikipedians to use our own original phrasing to disclaim information - especially in controversial areas, because even if it is not your intent it can give the impression that the intent is to artificially lessen the impact of the statement or to introduce doubt of its veracity. (There's a policy page about this somewhere, but I cannot remember its link offhand.) If you agree with me, would you mind rewriting the passage? It should be possible to come up with a version that both doesn't have problems with conflating sources that are talking about different things and also doesn't have the same sort of original phrasing issues. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see how this lessens the impact of the statement one bit. On the contrary, houses can be used as command center or for storage, the whole point is that civilian targets have been hit as well, which is exactly what is being discussed in the article later on. Also I don't see how this introduce doubt of its veracity. It simply separates the IDF and the Palestinian statements. If you can phrase it better go ahead. --109.186.17.8 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same user as Mor2? If so, I'd suggest you log in to make all of your edits (or alternately make all of your edits from an IP.) It's generally considered problematic to be editing the same topic area from two different user accounts at the same time, or from a user account and an IP at the same time. This is especially true when you're editing in a controversial subject area, like stuff about Israel and Palestine tend to be.

Anyway, I do still see significant problems with the sentence - particularly the fact that it introduces information to the sentence that is simply not present in the source. I'll rewrite it shortly in a way that conforms to what the actual sources say. In the future, please try not to add information to articles that is not supported by sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it was me(long story short, all those autosave features corrupt our memory). Sorry I missed your edit, its hard to keep track without being logged in. As for the sentence if your concern is really with sources, then you can easily google one or just look in our article sources(iirc it was in one of the casualties sources I edited before), after all the lead suppose to provide a summary of the article not just random sourced text.--Mor2 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, Mor2!

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

Great start to this article!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Mor2 You have made major changes to the 242 article scraping sections that have been stable for a very long time after considerable controversy. Please may I revert them and then we can discuss and agree changes on the article's talk page. Steve157 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013. 

Unless you'd like to be blocked for violating 1RR, I recommend that you self-revert your latest edit to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked at my latest edit on the article and I agree it is an unintentional violation of WP:1RR on my part. Due to only 22 hours passing since my last edit rather than 24. However, at this point, 24 hours have past and thus I see no point in self-reverting/reinstating, to avoid a technicality, cluttering the history. More importantly as I noted on Night w, talk page[1], this is not part of an edit war, at least not one initiated by me, which started with Japinderum revert of several edits/sourced material[2]. Due to a discussion "we" was supposedly having about it[3].--Mor2 (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. See WP:ANEW#User:Mor2 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert or you will be blocked that pretty clear cut case.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self-reverting. Please keep in mind that it doesn't matter who "initiated" the edit war. Also, remember that 1RR is a limitation, not a license to perform a reversion every 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its also not traps for the unwary, if I had noticed that the previous day edit had 2 hours overlap with today edit, we wouldn't be having this conversation.--Mor2 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, get third opinion with Japinderum.--Mor2 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mor2. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Is under a 1RR restriction, please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnkhMorpork already tried to change this section [4], his edit was reverted[5] and discussion was open at talk page Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Background. AnkhMorpork subsequent decision to blank the section without discussion or achieving consensus for his edit and mostly unexplained removal of multiple sourced material(which are connected with OPOD) is vandalism, which I was preventing. If you have objections you can take it to Talk and explain your position, or take to the board, in which point I will be filling a similiar request against AnkhMorpork.--Mor2 (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just self revert those edits by Ankh was not a vandalism.If you not you will be blocked--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its shame that you don't listen to someone with more exprience.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Your choice Darkness Shines (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mor2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of forty-eight hours for violating one-revert rule at Operation Pillar of Defense. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Note, however, that I requested further information in regards to your AN3 report against AnkhMorpork. If you have a single brief response to it, I'd be willing to entertain it. -- tariqabjotu 07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail.--Mor2 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the guide was changed was changed, I no longer need to send you an Email or work with that horrendous template(plus I see that you are busy). so here is my unblock request, if there further concerns need for clarification please point them out.--Mor2 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mor2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for restoring this:

• 1st revert: 21:37, 7 January 2013‎ AnkhMorpork (-11,352)‎ [6] - section blanking
• 2nd revert: 21:51, 7 January 2013‎ Darkness Shines (-11,352)‎ [7] - restoring ank changes.

My appeal is on the ground that my edit [8] [9] were justified and preventive, restoring content removal pending consensus. I argue that:

1. AnkhMorpork section blanking reverted at least two edits made to it on the day before [10] and [11] Which constitute WP:1RR violation.
2. AnkhMorpork section blanking, came after on the day before he already tried to removed parts of the section[12], which was reverted[13] directing him to talk, where a discussion was started[14]. Which he ignored and continued with blanking the whole section. Which constitute edit warring.
3. I consider AnkhMorpork section blanking of long standing material, subject of much discussion and consensus for the past few month, without discussion constitutes vandalism or proving a point. In either case its edit warring on article which was subject to several edit wars and protection measures instead of discussion on the talk page.

I request the block decision to be amended.

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: edit warring is prohibited, even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For this you need to establish that I was Edit warring. I was arguing that my edit was exempt from the WP:1RR restriction, due to AnkhMorpork violation of WP:1RR and his subsequent section blanking vandalism, on this still highly visible article. Btw you managed to notice/open/review/reply in under 4 minutes, amazing skills.--Mor2 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's actions are irrelevant to your own block and please read what is not vandalism - repeatedly accusing others of vandalism is a personal attack. Max Semenik (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's actions are relevant, I can't edit war without other people ;) The reason that I need to point AnkhMorpork actions, is not to deflect from my actions, but to establish context for my argument, that exempt my edits from the WP:1RR rule. Something that I wouldn't need todo if I was able to finish my submission on the boards(btw why the block effect all Wikipedia and not just content page, as measure of good faith?!).

More to the point, I have read the vandalism page and was referring specifically to this clause: Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason [..] Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.

Which is exempt if: the removal is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary..

His section blanking removed long standing 'referenced/verifiable and important information', which was subject of consensus building over several month. So its not readily apparent removal(especially since it was reverted by DLV and he was directed to talk). While his edit summary is frivolous, which can be observed by contrasting his edits [15], [16] - both have the same claims in the summaries, only first time he combed the section(which I had no objections to), while the second time he just blanked it.(probably trying to prove some point to DLV) furthermore a quick glance at the blanked section [17] should make it apparent that his edit summary is indeed frivolous, since most of the content is not WP:SYN, per source, factual and connected with OPOD(including my recent edit to it). --Mor2 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mor2, I got your e-mails. And yes, I was "busy", or rather asleep... I'm in UTC-8. I declined your AN3 request against AnkhMorpork an hour ago on the basis that it was not a 1RR violation. The first edit you noted was not a revert, as I stated there; you were unable to prove that it was one through the evidence you provided here and via e-mail. The second revert was not even by AnkhMorpork. But even if it were, (a) again, the first edit wasn't a revert and (b) that edit reversed the first edit. You are welcome to appeal your block at WP:AE after this expires, but I suggest you not. This is a clear-cut violation, and the appearance of formally appealing every AE block against you may convey the impression that you don't understand what the 1RR means (which seems to be true, apparently) and what is and is not permissible when editing in the Israel/Palestine area. -- tariqabjotu 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My request at the board is irrelevant, since I didn't have time to finished it(which is why the errors). As I noted in the email you can see my "revised" submission here. Also my understanding WP:RR was created to prevent disruption by avoiding edit warring. For all the reason I mentioned above I find that AnkhMorpork edits were at the very least disruptive and I would be appealing on that ground, not WP:RR violation which IMO is blunt quick response tool that obsess with counting edits/time rather than the motives behind them. Having good day and happy block time to me.--Mor2 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of revert counting myself, however what a wikipedian supposed to do if they consider someone else's edits disruptive? They should use dispute resolution, or report outright disruptive editors to madhouses like WP:ANI for maybe banhammering. Now ask yourself: is edit warring a dispute resolution venue? Max Semenik (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that 'dispute resolution' is the right venue, since I have no content dispute with AnkhMorpork. In fact after his initial edit was reverted, I joined the discussion on the talk page(per BRD) intending to support the majority of it. The issue is AnkhMorpork subsequent conduct, when he decided to skip the 'discuss changes' step, aggravating to whole section blanking in a my way or the high way fashion. It should be noted that this is article is "flambe" and seen many edit wars, AnkhMorpork is not a new user and its not his first controversial edit here, his previous huge edit already resulted in unwary users going to WP:AR. So with that in mind ignoring discussion and making especially controversial edit like blanking mostly several month old section is indeed disruptive, bordering on vandalism.(Which is why I reinstated the section)--Mor2 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were given good advise by experienced admins I suggest you listen to them also you should read WP:LETGO--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mor2. You have new messages at AnkhMorpork's talk page.
Message added 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ankh.Morpork 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're currently engaged in a discussion with User:Japinderum at Talk:State of Palestine on the differences between the UN criteria for statehood versus the declarative theory of statehood. I'm currently having a quite similar discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#arguably a contemporary example with this user. I don't suppose you could give us your two cents on the matter? Thanks! TDL (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this nonsense: Apparently a user removed some vandal editions because it was a clear "Unexplained removal of content and POV", but his legitimate correction was eliminated because he is a blocked user. Perhaps you could restore it. Greetings.--201.231.130.24 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read WP:PROXYING before you do that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Intelmaps2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Intelmaps1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]