User talk:Armon

This user may have left Wikipedia. Armon has not edited Wikipedia since 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

From now on, I will respond to conversations started on this page, here. Cheers, <<-armon->>

User talk:Armon/Archive 1

I believe you're over the 3RR. Please self-revert. CJCurrie (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just to prevent confusion -- my final edit on the Pallywood page today was not a revert, and hence not a 3RR violation. CJCurrie (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're at four reverts, and you've put a typo into the title. Please self-revert.--G-Dett (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I made a typo anyway...<<-armon->> (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of 3RR at Second Intifada. I will give you the opportunity to self revert before reporting your violation. I refer to your recent reversion of the "Casualties" section. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn sorry about that. gimme a sec. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, we all make mistakes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it though if you discussed your concerns at the talk page rather than just engage in edit wars. I know it can be a pain in the bum trying to explain things but ultimately edit wars don't get us anywhere. I think I've already compromised on this particular issue to a very substantial degree but so far I've seen little readiness to reciprocate on your part (or Tewfik's for that matter).

No-one can expect to have everthing their way, and I think there'd be a lot less fuss on Wiki generally if people would just work a bit harder at reaching a compromise on talk pages that all parties can live with, rather than wasting energy on futile revert wars that only tend to aggravate tensions. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In fact, I agree with you. However, look at the talk page, I've discussed the issues at length and I think you're being a bit one-eyed on the subject. If TS wants to rant about how biased I am, there's really nothing to respond to. For example, I thought the infobox issue was settled a long time ago, yet here we go again with the same failed arguments. What do you suggest we do? <<-armon->> (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've conceded on the infobox issue, but there are still some other outstanding issues, which I've addressed on the article talk page. Perhaps you would like to comment there? Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted 3 times at Palestinian people to delete sourced information. I am not going to revert your edit again so as to recuse myself from this edit war. I would appreciate however, in the future, when the information is restored, that you do not keep deleting it. It is sourced and verifiable information and you should gain consensus for the changes you wish to make. I see from your talk page that this style of editing seems to a pattern for you. I hope that you consider breaking it. Thanks. Tiamut 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are back to blanking the same material again. Would you mind responding to Eleland's compromise suggestion, rather than simply pursuing the repeated deletion of sourced material? Thanks. Tiamut 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are again in violation of 3RR there (see the previous 3RR notice from Gatoclass higher up on this talk page). I will give you time to self-revert before reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armon. I see from your user contributions that you have made some edits on several wikipedia pages since I left my last message here. So you should have seen the notice that the wikipedia software puts on the top of all wikipedia pages that you view. The notice about a new message on your user talk page. Please self-revert. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I haven't spoken to you in a while and I was wondering how things are going. It looks like you've had a few conflicts over the past few months. If you want to chat, I'll be on gtalk for a long time once I get home in two days. Cheers, --Gimme danger (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 HOURS in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nat.utoronto 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you are reverting my edits[1], but have not cared to respond to me on the article's talk page. Can you do so now?Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You modified a direct quote and tagged it as OR. It can't be. Please read WP:OR. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Anti-Arabism. It's been a slog and I appreciate the hand. - CheshireKatz (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian people. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. i posted a question for you at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, your comments here are contrary to WP:CIV. Removal of nonreliable blog sources bordering on WP:FRINGE status is entirely appropriate and not evidence of "bad faith". The reason I didn't fix the JPost blog link is that it's disappeared from JPost's server and there's no Google cache; if you can find a reliable copy somewhere you're encouraged to replace it. <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't even look for a fix to a broken link, or, even discuss your blanking sources on talk, it's a self evident example of bad faith given your ideological opposition to the photo. Just don't do that. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armon, I just *told* you I looked for a fix to the broken link, and I couldn't find one. Furthermore, I left the link in assuming good faith on the part of the original editor. Whatever my ideology is is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's very well founded prohibition on using unreliable or fringe sources to comment on anything but themselves. The blog of the activist group Honest Reporting, the personal blog of a medieval history professor, and the online mouthpiece of David Horowitz do not pass muster. <eleland/talkedits> 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using the cite templates except for Bauer, which was a dead link, but I am collapsing the ridiculous redundancies. I still don't understand Slim's virulent opposition, and her disregard of my requests for information does not help. -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's still a BIG improvement. I think we just need to get more people to comment on the issue. I'm not crazy about the templates either, but I'll go either way. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the superscripted page numbers in line? -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you use an example paragraph, and show the options in a nowiki tag, it will make it easier for people to "vote" for the method they like. Make sense? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit with no discussion? Please don't revert again, without using the talk page, as I have. Thanks. ←Gee♥Alice 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion? You're kidding -right? <<-armon->> (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I've asked you to elucidate what you think of the proposed edit at Talk:Palestinian people, pls give a look when you have a chance. Hope you and yours are well. HG | Talk 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw your remarks on Wikipedia talk:No original research. They're untrue, grossly incivil and frankly defamatory, and patently a breach of WP:CIV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I think that given the circumstances, that it was a reasonable and fair comment. I'd also point out that I'm not the only one who though the zombietime image had something to do with this. I certainly didn't intend to cause any offense by them. Sorry If you feel that way. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my investigation of a complaint at WP:AE, I am applying the general sanctions enacted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as follows:

• You are placed on revert limitation. You are limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I'll go you one better. I won't edit articles at all for a month. I'll restrict myself to talk pages only. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:36, 23 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]

Hello, Armon! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're coming back, refreshed from your wikibreak.-gadfium 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you respond to this RfC for me, please? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:55, 13 March 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 Armon.

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) 17:06, 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]

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]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been missed :)

If you return to Wikipedia, let me know and we can resume, but for now let's consider the adoption suspended. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned for myself that existentialism is not true. 128.187.97.22 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case (Palestine-Israel articles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 27 October 2014 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]