User talk:Avraham/Archive 41
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| < Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42> |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - ... (up to 100) |
Can you please unblock me?
I don't understand why my old account is still being blocked. If it is due to sock puppetry then I have an excuse. No one will listen to me on my talkpage block review. You'll notice that in my scok puppet accounts I have made good contributory edits. I keep getting blocked because I have been "block evading" (I don't know what that even means). I want to continue to edit and stay away from the thing that got me banned in the first place. I am a changed person. I said that on my talk page but the admin simply said "no I don't think so". I asked what he meant but there was no reply. Its been weeks now. 78.144.107.76 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whats "ArbCom"? And can you provide a link please? 89.242.133.185 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain reversion of British Medical Association quote
I'm sure you simply missed my earlier message before you archived your Talk page, but here it is again for your convenience, with emphasis added: Please explain how in your view, the BMA's quoted statement "contradicts the BMA."[1] It seems you may believe the BMA is contradicting itself, but you have not adequately demonstrated that, and thus your reversion seems based on (at least) original research. Also please explain the reversion of the other changes, which you did not address in your edit summary. Blackworm (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Answered on Talk:Circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You also reverted the changing in position of one sentence about support groups, which seemed out of place in a discussion of various positions on psychological effects, as well as my addition of the "Pain" section heading prefacing all the material regarding pain. You have not addressed these reversions. Please do. Blackworm (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Answered on user's talk page. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- You also reverted the changing in position of one sentence about support groups, which seemed out of place in a discussion of various positions on psychological effects, as well as my addition of the "Pain" section heading prefacing all the material regarding pain. You have not addressed these reversions. Please do. Blackworm (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help me to change gzhao to GeorgeZhao
i prefer to use GeorgeZhao,but i registed this account before,but forgot the password. i want to merge all me global accounts for differents language of wiki projects. i am not sure if i can get this name 'GeorgeZhao' OR 'GeorgeZHAO'now, if not possible to use GeorgeZhao, 'George.Zhao' is also an option i'd like to change. thanks so much. Gzhao (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Done See WP:CHU -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dangerously close to hounding me.
This edit, along with other examples of following me around to other pages I edit and reverting my changes or modifying my changes, seems to me to be the textbook definition of hounding, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that since you have said that you "know" that I personally do not like you,[2] this evidence is all the more convincing. Please stop immediately. Blackworm (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
SPI
[3] Thanks for this, when you left the channel we thought you weren't going to be able to do it. Thank you for following up! Nathan T 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
You've got mail. Please contact me as soon as possible. AdjustShift (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
My stolen name
Thank you for this and sorry to bother you again. I'm trying to figure out what happened. When I made the request, I clicked on the links for old and new usernames, and Tempo rubato existed somewhere else, but Rigaudon did not seem to. When you asked me to wait, Rigaudon existed here and at the German Wikipedia, and somehow you managed to give me the name change here. Is the German Rigaudon the reason why I wasn't able to create an account at Wiktionary, when I tried a few minutes ago? It asked me for my global password, and wouldn't accept the one I chose for Wikipedia. How do I fix that? Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll look into that. Rigaudon (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A German bureaucrat kindly renamed the stolen account, but I still can't create the name at Wiktionary. Even though I seem to be the only existing Rigaudon anywhere[4], my account here is treated as "unattached" to the global account. See here. Have you any suggestions? Thanks again. Rigaudon (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Can you give me a link to a page which I should post on, or refer me to a steward who has a talk page here? Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help. I have made a request at the page you suggested. Rigaudon (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Everything is in order now. Many thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Wanted to clarify one thing
Over at AdjustShift's page in your reply to me you state "If you would like to say you don't trust me; fine". I want to make clear that it's not that I don't trust you. Rather I think that what happened was an unconscious shift in perception in how the public evidence was viewed, based on the content of the secret evidence. It creeped from "unlikely" to "possible" to "guilty", all, supposedly based on just the public evidence. But as much as we'd all like to believe that we approach these kinds of judgments rationally and neutrally there are obviously a lot of factors into how we perceive things. This is in fact a very big part of the reason for why these kinds of procedures need to be/are carried out in the open - the input from others can help re-balance our perceptions and correct unconscious biases. And this is why all this monkeying around with "secret evidence" should have never happened and this case should have been conducted in a completely different manner. I really like the Anscombe's quartet graph on your talk page (This is the Anscombe of Anscombe-Aumann [5], right? (probably needs an article)). But without actually being able to see the data I can't help but think that you've fit that upward slopping regression line through something like Graph #4 (lower left). radek (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that; I appreciate it. I guess the best way to say it was that the stylistic evidence gathered by AdjustShift was sufficient, but not necessary in light of the combination of Scurinaæ, the edit history pattern, and the checkuser evidence. Although AS's evidence would be, in and of itself, sufficient to indicate that Molobo=Gwinndeith, it was not necessary in my opinion as the deciding admin. This was a very complicated case which was why multiple admins, checkusers, and members of ArbCom got involved. Speaking for myself, the original
Possible was based on the CU evidence in a vacuum. The CU evidence combined with the editing pattern, and my experience as a CU, painted a different picture. I understand that it seems as if there was a shift in feeling, and there was; but it was based primarily on evidence that was already there. Should you fel I have made an error, which is of course possible, please bring it up to ArbCom.
- As for Anscombe, it was actually Francis Anscombe, and the data itself can be found at Anscombe's quartet. He specifically created the dataset to show that pure numerical analysis without graphical analysis can be misleading at times. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's the same Anscombe - it's just in Economics he's known because of the work he did with Robert Aumann. Anyway, regardless of the disagreement here, thank you for your hard work.radek (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The Molobo case & the secret evidence
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Enough. There was no wrongdoing here that I can see, and repeated unfounded accusations are only serving to indicate an unwillingness to abide by policies. The proper channels (WP:ANI and WP:BASC) have been pointed out numerous times, and further attempts at obfuscation via wikilawyering will likely be viewed as disruptive. At this time, interested parties should be following the PROPER channels only. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned by the appalling way this case was handled. There was a complete lack of transparency and every time we hear a different version about the so called "secret evidence". First it was repeated for days, even weeks that the case would take longer because the secret evidence was being reviewed. Now AdjustShif made a comment on his talk page, if i understood him correctly, that the so called secret evidence was not used by you. So which it is: was the secret evidence used or it was not used? And if it was when it will be published as it was repeatedly promised during the investigation, if it wasn't then why this case went on for weeks where, lets be frank, the evidence which was made public could have been reviewed even by my grandmother in 2 or 3 days at most. Loosmark (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the best way to say it was that the stylistic evidence gathered by AdjustShift was sufficient, but not necessary in light of the combinationof Scurinaæ, the edit history pattern, and the checkuser evidence. This was a very complicated case which was why multiple admins, checkusers, and members of ArbCom got involved. Speaking for myself, the original
- I don't understand what do you mean by "not necessary in light of". Was the secret evidence a part in your decision on the case or was it not? And why it wasn't published before the decision was made as it was promised it would be. Loosmark (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot say I ignored it, but I would have made the same decision without AS's e-mail. I don't know about anyone else; I was asked to look at the case pretty late in the game due to its complexity, and I made a ruling. I do not recall promising to show or not show anything to anyone. By all means, if AS or Scurinæ is willing to post something or e-mail you something, I have no issues with someone else dispensing the information; however, I was asked not to forward the information outside of ArbCom and the functionaries list, I personally have not. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let me explain why I have problem with this with an extreme analogy. Imagine a man is accused of killing his wife. The police brings evidence on court but the case is complex and difficult. Then additional evidence is brought in which it is claimed proves very bad things about the man. The judge examins it and declares it has to remain secret. The defense demands to see it but the judge rules the guy is guilty and says something along the lines of "don't worry about that extra evidence, i've seen it but i nailed him even based on the other evidence." Can you even imagine such a situation happening in a courtroom? I know wiki is not a courtroom but IMO applying some its logics wouldn't be bad. Loosmark (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, Lossmark. However, may I respectfully claim that there are flaws in your analogy?
- Checkuser is not a legal proceeding. It is a technical function in which, for lack of a better term, users who have demonstrated both a very high level of community trust, sufficient technical ability to understand the data, and the good judgment necessary to interpret the data in parallel with editing patterns are tasked by the community to make said judgment as to the probability and likelihood of various accounts being one and the same, or not, and to take (or direct others to take) the appropriate actions to protect the project.
- I am no lawyer (nor do I play one on the radio) but in a judge-only (no jury) trial, if the judge bases his verdict on the evidence at hand, i am not certain that the defense can claim mistrial about evidence deemed unnecessary. Even if they could, the proper prcedure is an appeal, which in this case is a request to WP:ARBCOM or WP:AUSC to review my work, which is based on a combination of the CU evidence, the editing patterns, and the open stylistic evidence of Scurinæ, although the additional stylistic evidence by AS would only serve to further cement the decision. I assume responsibility for my work and decisions, as usual; I have stated I have no issues with an appeal; and if Arbcom/AUSC feels I have erred, I would be happy to be correct my error and assume any rebuke necessary. -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot say I ignored it, but I would have made the same decision without AS's e-mail. I don't know about anyone else; I was asked to look at the case pretty late in the game due to its complexity, and I made a ruling. I do not recall promising to show or not show anything to anyone. By all means, if AS or Scurinæ is willing to post something or e-mail you something, I have no issues with someone else dispensing the information; however, I was asked not to forward the information outside of ArbCom and the functionaries list, I personally have not. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand what do you mean by "not necessary in light of". Was the secret evidence a part in your decision on the case or was it not? And why it wasn't published before the decision was made as it was promised it would be. Loosmark (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: let's assume that Molobo had a sock (as I have not seen the evidence, I can only do it on good faith). Why such a draconian lenght of a block? Despite all the accompaning wikidramu, the extent of his disruption seems minimal (when was the last time he broke 3RR? A year ago...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Look at Molobo's block log; I'd be within wiki policy to go indef, being that he was on his second last chance after two indefs. -- Avi (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please look at the merit of this log. It contains lots of unfair blocks, unblocks, duration changes and other comments. Please also analyze it from the chronological angle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Molobo is more than welcome to request another admin to review the block. -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I* would like *you* to review it. Why have somebody else waste time on this case, when you're already somewhat familiar with it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe a year is appropriate based on the history of wiki guideline and policy violations and based on a prior full one year block and not one but two INDEF blocks that were reduced as "last chances" predicated on behavior. To create sockpuppets to violate wikipedia restrictions indicative of someone whose interests are NOT in creating a better project but editing as they see fit; consensus and rules be d@rned. A year will likely not impress upon Molobo the seriousness of his actions; he's been blocked for a year already. I just didn't want to go indef now to allow for the very small possibility that perhaps, maybe with mentoring involved, he may learn how to properly interact with others and the rules of the project. There is nothing preventing him, or anyone, from asking for a review at the ban/long term block appeals subcommittee. That is what they are there for. -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Avi, I have been following this case and would like to make the following observation. User Molobo has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia for articles related to Nazi war crimes in Poland. Why would people want to ban him? I ask you please to review his edit history and reconsider your decision. I must run off to work, regards--Woogie10w (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(<-)He is not banned, but blocked for a year, although a ban may be an option. Good work in one area does not excuse gross violations of wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has repeatedly violated various principles and guidelines, and has been indef blocked not once but twice. He may request a review on his userpage or e-mail ArbCom for a review. -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good work? I gotta laugh. Molobo was a tendentious nationalist edit-warrior who would have been indeffed years ago if it weren't for the tenacious help of Piotrus and the rest of the bee-swarm that buzz in whenever a fellow "patriotic" tendie is in trouble. Avraham, welcome to EE-land, now you will realise why no admin is active in the area in an admin way. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Deacon, I find this comment very inappopriate, not only towards Molobo, but towards me and other Polish editors. Please refactor it. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham your comment above is interesting. I don't have any experience with that so probably i just don't understand how things work but i thought that Checkuser is simply checking the IP of an user? Obviously that's a technical function but what exactly do the editing patterns have to do with that? I'm not sure how is that a technical function and neither how are the two things connected. Can you please point me to page with where I can read the rules for Checkuser? I only manage to find this page Wikiversity:CheckUser policy, is that the correct page to look at? Loosmark (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- See m:checkuser and wp:checkuser as well, and WP:SPI. Checkuser data includes more than just IP information, and the role of checkusers involves more than just the technical data available. Nathan T 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's just what I was looking for. thanks Nathan. Loosmark (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Avraham while you were examining the Molobo case did you have off-wiki discussions about it with Sciurinæ? Loosmark (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, and if I would have had, how would it matter? -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, given the fact that Sciurinæ and Molobo had a history of animosity and conflict the off-wikipedia discusions about the case with Sciurinæ while examining and deciding about his faith would have been unproper. AdjustShift just admited that for the past 20 days he was in contact with Sciurinæ "discussing the case". In my view the neutral way to conduct the case would have been Sciurinæ passes the evidence to the admin, if he has any questions about it, he asks, and then the off-wikipedia discusions with Sciurinæ about the case cease and the case is conducted without any esternial influences whatsoever. Loosmark (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect. If Scurinæ had evidence or analysis that was applicable, it would have been completely appropriate for me to have asked him to explain it. It is my job to assume Molobo is innocent at first and to separate the facts and good analysis from any possible impartiality. Ignoring valid evidence is never an appropriate option. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it would have been appropriate for you to ask to have the evidence explained, I would done the same myself. But is that what happened here? AdjustShift stated that he was discussing the case with Scurinæ for 20 days. Logic says you don't need to have the evidence explained for 20 days. Loosmark (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Incorrect. If Scurinæ had evidence or analysis that was applicable, it would have been completely appropriate for me to have asked him to explain it. It is my job to assume Molobo is innocent at first and to separate the facts and good analysis from any possible impartiality. Ignoring valid evidence is never an appropriate option. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Loosmark: "... the case is conducted without any esternial influences whatsoever" You mean, a bit like a papal election? Please stop spreading conspiracy theories to try and delegitimize this procedure after the fact, hoping that some mud will stick. Both the evidence and decision were public. If you can find any irregularities with either, identify them and report them to ArbCom. Any public or private communication around the case that may or may not have taken place is irrelevant. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any public or private communication around the case that may or may not have taken place is irrelevant really? so you would have been ok with a situation that i would have been in off-wiki comunication with AdjustShift explaining him that and why he should not ban Molobo? Maybe you are correct but my gut feeling is that would have been a real no no.Loosmark (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Loosmark: Your "gut feeling" is irrelevant insofar as you can't show how the final result is in any way incorrect. Besides, given the intensity of on-wiki lobbying from Molobo's supporters, I think it's highly improbable that they weren't trying to pull some strings behind the scenes. Finally, this is Avi's talk page, so I will end our discussion here. I just wanted to ask you to stop your FUD campaign against this SPI on all sorts of talk pages. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- so if the final result is correct anything else doesn't matter? i find this logic dangerous. Loosmark (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Loosmark: Your "gut feeling" is irrelevant insofar as you can't show how the final result is in any way incorrect. Besides, given the intensity of on-wiki lobbying from Molobo's supporters, I think it's highly improbable that they weren't trying to pull some strings behind the scenes. Finally, this is Avi's talk page, so I will end our discussion here. I just wanted to ask you to stop your FUD campaign against this SPI on all sorts of talk pages. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Any public or private communication around the case that may or may not have taken place is irrelevant really? so you would have been ok with a situation that i would have been in off-wiki comunication with AdjustShift explaining him that and why he should not ban Molobo? Maybe you are correct but my gut feeling is that would have been a real no no.Loosmark (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- @Loosmark: "... the case is conducted without any esternial influences whatsoever" You mean, a bit like a papal election? Please stop spreading conspiracy theories to try and delegitimize this procedure after the fact, hoping that some mud will stick. Both the evidence and decision were public. If you can find any irregularities with either, identify them and report them to ArbCom. Any public or private communication around the case that may or may not have taken place is irrelevant. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:BAG Nakon
See, I read your mind :) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
non-free images questions
Hi Avraham, could you check to make sure I did everything needed for the image File:Nizar Rayyan AFP.jpg? A number of other images are going to need to be deleted (*I think*) for being non-free with too high a resolution, you can see a small discussion of it here. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Egmontbot
My bot thanks you for flag! --Egmontaz♤ talk 09:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
Avraham, Srinivas G Phani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Srinivas G Phani 04:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Avi, Thanks for doing the above checkuser. Whenever I've made a sock accusation I've failed, however convinced I was of the evidence. Presumably different computers/IPs were involved but the accounts were working to a common purpose. I'm not sure if there is anywhere else I am meant to go from here. Any suggestions?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
CU
Hi Avraham. Regarding this report [6], this is clear case of fishing by a banned user. I am not Tajik or related to him, so why are you confirming my alternative accounts as "sock puppets"? I haven't violated WP:sock, the accounts in question are used for different topical areas (politics, ancient history, modern history) etc, in like with Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT. I am neither a banned user nor have used these accounts to evade 3RR or anything like that. This is an infringement on my privacy. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Avi. Thanks for clearing this up. I appreciate your your hard work and dedication to community. Dear Avi, could you just please unblock and reblock those accounts as "retired" or something else, the current logs are vague and make it look like I am related to Beh-nam. Again, I apologize in advance for taking up so much of your time. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Over the edge
שלום וברכה! Hi Avraham. I saw on your profile that you are an administrator that understands and performs range blocks. If you could give me your expert opinion in the following matter I would really appreciate it. On this talk page an user added Dries van Agt as a Dutch Jew in his protest against the list mentioning also what he calls "partly" jewish. It's zum versyteren because this person has a bad reputation regarding Jews. In 1972 he caused outrage when he tried to pardon the last three Nazi war criminals still in Dutch prisons in 1972, who were responsible for the deportation of between 105 and 110.000 Dutch Jews, called himself an Aryan, and protected Dutch Nazi Menten. His very last remark I find very insulting, over the edge. Could you take a look at this? Thank you in advance for your reply: I have added your talk page to my watchlist. כל טוב, Metzujan (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see a reason for a checkuser run right now. This person is not necessarily sockpuppetting. Should a long-term block be applied to VKing due to inappropriate speech on EnWiki, and another account starts making similar edits, then a CU would be justified to uncover the range for a rangeblock. Right now, it would not be appropriate, I am afraid. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I didn't mean to ask for a CU but if you agree that the above mentioned remark of VKing is over the edge. I might be too sensitive but I think it is despicable what he wrote. שבת שלום Metzujan (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly think that you're wrong in Tajik's case. Clerk Jake_Wartenberg already said he's sure it's Tajik's sock accounts. [7] Did you see what Jake shown here? Tajik used the following socks before: User:German-Orientalist, User:KabuliTajik, User:Padmanii, User:DerDoc, as well as User:Al-Fanā. Another hint: Tajik knew the banned user Nisakhan very well and strangely Kurdo777 is now also bringing up that same Nisarkhan dude.[8] This Tajik guy sure is slick and he knows how to trick you admins. I have no idea why you protecting him, it's not doing any good to Wikipedia. Another thing I wanna add is that Tajik knows a way of logging from Germany on a server in the UK.--Self Image (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Could you please also check if Shahin Giray (talk · contribs) has anything to do with Kurdo777 (talk · contribs)? I asked for the check at CU page, since there's a similarity between these 2 accounts. Thank you. Grandmaster 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Some shameless thankspam...
Hi Avi, I'm content with the box, but I think the wording "The article on the incident" needs some work... how to improve it, precisely, I can't think of off-hand... Just kibbitzing a bit... Tomertalk 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I made the changes to the wording to add the self-published note and remove a bit of rubbish. Hadn't noticed the wording at the end. Nevard (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks. Nevard (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
AFD
Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation LeagueHistoricist (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Closing
This [9] is overdue to be closed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Bing Bong
The mighty Gods of e-mail have decreed yet more rubbish to be present in your in-box.... :) Pedro : Chat 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
G.phanisrinivas → Srinivas
This message is to notify to you that G.phanisrinivas is know known as Srinivas. Thank you! --Srinivas 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tb Notification Using friendly
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Friendly. Thank you. Srinivas 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})