Look, explain to me what exactly you are against in my edits. You are deleting indiscriminately. I am working on adding citations as fast as I can, it is hard enough without you reverting everything to present the data as Israel's deliberate attacks on civilians while leaving some fishy claims intact. Let's work together on it, tell me what you want changed or downplayed, but do not delete so grossly. Thanks.
hey - explain to me again why these photos arent copyrighted? thanks. - Preposterous 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You say you compiled those images from "private photos" — whose photos were they and are you sure they released those photos under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5? -- Cyde↔Weys 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
also - i'll grant that the first group of 4 may belong in the article, if you can prove that they're yours, but why are the other two needed? also, they're in the wrong section. -
Preposterous 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Cyde and Preposterous, Thanks for your messages. Yes, I'm certain that these montages of private photographs are released under GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5. As I said in the talk page, the claim that these are from the BBC is not true: I simply included a pointer to the BBC article " Their bodies litter the road" reporting on this incident. Also, thank you for pointing out that I placed these in the incorrect section -- I caught this myself and have since corrected it. And as for the shock value, that really depends upon the viewer -- the reality of civilian casualties is certainly in the news as we type, and would appear to be just as an appropriate inclusion as BBC's shocking title. AdamKesher 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very strict about licensing issues. You say these are montages of "private photographs". We need more source information than that. Who took them? For legal reasons, we need confirmation from each photographer that he intends to release his photographs under both GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.5. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding the images over and over. You may be blocked. You need to answer these source issues first. Copyright law is not insignificant on Wikipedia. -- Cyde↔Weys 13:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
adam -- I have had some issues with some of the same people you have, such as tasc, where they made ridiculous edits and said they were removing vandalism. However, I think you are doing a disservice to everyone by insisting on adding victim photos on Wikipedia article pages. That is not where they belong. I fully support you adding external links to photo archives and on-the-scene blogs, as you have done, because theycan potentially give a deeper insight into what is going on -- and I think you have been treated poorly by certain extremist elements on Wikipedia who oppose even just a link to someone who might disagree with them. However, I think that when you add victim photos and shock photos, you are weakening your case and displaying a strong bias of your own. Just my two cents...
BTW, I looked at the mediation you are involved in over the 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Although I do not necessarily agree many of the edits you have made that resulted in the mediation, I am very upset at the tactics employed by some of those on the opposite side of the issue, e.g. attacking the mediator just when a compromise was being established. So I would like to see you succeed -- and I think you hurt your case when you post these photos. -- Jaysweet 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
See the last topic in the "Discussion about POV" section. Greetings, Sijo Ripa 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I have put a comment on the talk page. I'm not taking anyone side, but am sick of seeing the edit war. The page has already been semi-protected. If this edit war continues I will ask an admin for full protection of the page. You guys need to discuss stuff on the talk page and start following the rules of Wikipedia. Davidpdx 13:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the goal of your reorganisation was. Could you please explain? Thank you, Tewfik Talk 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind the last part, I didn't notice they were there already. Tewfik Talk 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how can you support leaving that thing in the article? If you press the link, you go to Khaleej times, an Arab newspaper. Arab newspapers can be good source on what is happening on the Arab side, but how can they be a source for something that was supposedly broadcast in Israeli radio, but not reported by anyone else (no Israeli or outside sources?) Especially when this is such a controversial and harsh staterment, and when it is not qualified in any way ("An arab newspaper claims" or so)?
But obviously, this comment will remain unanswered, as are all my comments in the talk page so far. So much for discussion. M. Butterfly 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with M. Butterfly here - this sounds like a case of wartime propaganda, not anything that is actually backed up by facts. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Hezbollah attacked first, it is logical that it should be mentioned first. Then since Israel responded, Israel should be mentioned second. -- 128.148.154.119 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this logic for the military section. However, for the civilian section, Israel attacked civilian areas first, then Hezbollah responded with its own attack on civilians. It is true that they've been launching rockets at Israelis for a long time, but in the context of this conflict, that's the chronology for civilans. Also, the number of civilian casualties inflicted by Israel has been much, much higher, and is therefore a much more important part of the story, especially the non-Hezbollah Lebanese, which make their first appearance in this article only in the "By Israel" section. Delaying this important factor has the effect of "burying the lead." Finally, in the neutral reporting of any conflict, it's best logically to mix the sequence of AB and BA. Therefore, I would argue that the sequence in the Civilan section should be Israel-then-Hezbollah, which does follow the Hezbollah-then-Israel sequence in the military section. AdamKesher 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You have reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please be aware that this violates the Three Revert Rule and may cause your account to be blocked. -- Denis Diderot 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As a Wiki member who is posting accounts very critical of Israel, I'm curious what your take is on a Historical support for Israel section in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Please join me at the discussion when you have time. FightCancer 01:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm duplicated my reply to your unsubstantiated accusations here, to make sure you don't miss it.
The deletion obviously isn't unsubstantiated, and I've explained in detail [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] why these links clearly violates fundamental Wikipedia policies. The fact, that you don't accept that is irrelevant, since you're obviously more concerned with your political peeves than with building an Encyclopedia. The article is now completely useless as a source of information. That's something you should worry about instead of adding links to unreliable websites that anyone can find anyway in 5 seconds, using Google or Yahoo. -- Denis Diderot 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I used it in Image talk:Ahmadinejad-and-Nasrallah.jpg and stated that Nasrallah's education is Qom with his picture next to Ahmadinejad is pertinent for it shows how his ideas about the destruction of Israel as articulated by Ayatollah Khomeini were reinforced and how he created a network of friends among Iranian mullhas.
Plus, I gave lengthy explanations to justify fair use. Everyone turned against me and I have decided to avoid usage of "fair use" when possible like in this television snapshot.-- Patchouli 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of these arguments. Do what you like with Nasrallah's image on TV.-- Patchouli 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese Areas Targeted 7-15 to 7-21.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Adam, I know you're just trying to improve the article, but merely changing one word doesn't change the copyright status of the map, because it is based off of a copyrighted source, and it can't be labeled GFDL. What I recommend is that we wither get permission to use it from the authro, or make our own copy, which we have done most successfully in the past. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Tewfik Talk 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Many people would not take the time to do that. Good job, Tewfik Talk 02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The links to almashriq.hiof.no and hirhome.com, and the image collection sites, mean that the Unverifiable-external-links template belongs at the top of the section. -- Barberio 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I buggered up the link in my edit summary, sorry. Pity you can't edit edit summaries. Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict/Pictures Is the right link. -- Iorek85 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, there! I see you had a bit of trouble creating a case page :). I have listed the incorrectly placed redirects for speedy deletion and have moved your case request to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, those images look good- I think you are trying to illustrate bombing damage to that area, described by Halutz?.
Are they ok for copyright? I think also there might be some questions raised on the timestamp for the images. Have they been used by an reputable organisation, journalist, military official to describe bombing damage? That could help in allowing their fair use. 82.29.227.171 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Israeli soldiers mourn during a funeral.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Jkelly 16:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please use the lowest resolution possible when claiming Wikipedia:Fair use. High-resolution unlicensed images are subject to deletion. Thanks. Jkelly 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I see above, you said that you received permission from the copyright holder to use this image. If that is the case, would you consider removing the references to "fair use" from the image description page? This image obviously does not qualify for fair use and having the tag on there places it in a category where it does not belong. Just the CC license tag is sufficient. Also, please consider adding to the page a note saying that you received via email permission to release the image under the CC license so that people don't bother looking at the source website for the permission. Thank you. BigDT 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems that it got dropped out of I3 somehow. I just clarified it there. For what it is worth, Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, which you used on the image, makes this clear. Jkelly 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That is really unfortunate; we can't delete accounts. This is not only an annoyance to you, it is also problematic for the "single login" Wikimedia fix. Can I ask you to use your en: account to confirm that this is the same person as en:User:AdamKesher? I don't doubt that it is, but I am planning to block User:AdamKesher as an imposter after consultation with another admin, and I want to be able to demonstrate the connection to anyone that asks. Jkelly 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A new tfd discussion has been started because usage guidelines have been added on the template page and because the {tfd} notice was missing for most of the duration of the last discussion. Please review the recently-created usage guidelines before casting your vote. Although my delete vote remained unchanged, I would appreciate your renewed input in this discussion whether or not you agree. savidan (talk) (e@) 23:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you've asked for arbitration. Well, I'm not sure it's the right way (see my talk page, I've replied to your last comment there). ArbCom might decide to implement the safest, not the best solution, which is most strict policy compliance, and inclusion here has both pro- and con- points, though the pro- seem to be stronger. Possibly a poll or other less strong way would be better for the article.
If you decide to resolve this via arbitration, would you liker me to participate (as third party, not in categories)? -- CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.
Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559 as the reason he removed the detail. However, Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. If you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this case still active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Child male victim of the 2006 Israeli Airstrike on Qana.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Economist Cover 20060819.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) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
File:BLP Spec Warn.svg | Your contributions to
Story of My Life (novel) have violated the
biographies of living persons (BLP) policy for the following reason: edit-warring to insert poorly sourced material in a
tangentially related article. Please read the policy carefully, and avoid making future edits which violate it.
Remember that Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. We have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that biographical content is written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. Consider this a firm and final warning, made pursuant to the requirements of this Arbitration remedy. You must alter your editing methods or face special enforcement sanctions, which could include restrictions on reverts or other specified behavior, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary. MastCell Talk 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
Don't defame me or my edits with scurrilous charges like this. I challenge you to substantiate these empty charges with specific links and citations to Wikipedia policy, rather than waving around wikilinks to WP:BLP and empty threats of account blocking. Indeed, you have failed to cite even a single word from WP:BLP that supports the action of censoring the reliable fact that author Jay McInerney names the basis of his principal character for his novel Story of My Life. AdamKesher ( talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You're vindicated - congratulations! I understand exactly how you must feel - I helped write Ashley Alexandra Dupré and went through two AfDs in short order on that one - plus I've gotten a bunch of scurrilous accusations for writing John Edwards extramarital affair. Keep watching the news feeds and update the article as reliable sources check in with verified information (they now are being forced to do so). Let me know if you need any help! Kelly hi! 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Adam, this is a piece of text i placed on the talk pages of a half-dozen portal-equine (or whatever it is called) editors, and at a couple of horse topic talk pages. I know it's old hat to you, but while i was in the process of placing it, someone created the horse murders article -- and YIKES! It needs help! Stat! cat
Here's the text i used:
Hello, all --
I realize that this is a distasteful subject to many in the horse field, especially among those with a love of show jumpers, but the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair currently in the news has opened up many, many questions on the subject of the late 20th century horse murders scandal. The reason for that, in case you don't know, is that Rielle Hunter was formerly Lisa Druck, whose father, James Druck, conspired to have her beloved show jumper Henry the Hawk electrocuted to collect the insurance money on him. This tragedy formed the background for a 1988 novel based on Lisa Druck's life, called Story of my Life by Jay McInerney. Later, in the early to mid 1990s, the actual horse killing scandal was exposed to the public through articles in the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, and then through a full-length book called "Hot Blood." An FBI investigation into the horse murders led to the conviction of a number of highly placed people in the show jumper and general equestrian sports world on charges of insurance fraud.
When Rielle Hunter's background was probed, due to her affair with John Edwards, it turned out that she and her horse were prominent victims of the horse murder insurance scam, and her own father was one of the orchestrators of the criminal activities. But in trying to link this information up to her bio article, it turned up that there wss no article on the subject of the horse murders at Wikipedia, doubtless because the scandal occured before the development of the world wide web. An article was just created today, but it is not comprehensive in scope and needs to be expanded greatly lest it be deleted. There is an article on the murder of the millionairess Helen Brach whose death, in 1977, was also connected to the horse murders scandal, and it too could use improvement.
I am looking for a few good editors who have the brackground to write the horse murders article, and to link it to the Helen Brach murder, show jumping, and Rielle Hunter articles. No need to reply to me -- if you are interested, you know what to do. I will try to help, also, as best i can, but the topic is far from my usual field of writing, and i would prefer to see it handled by those with the greatest depth of knowledge on the subject.
If you need sources to cite, you can find the best of them at the Rielle Hunter page in the section on her early life and family. Here are two more:
[[ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D8173FF936A3575AC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, On Killing Horses for Money: A Craftsman's Dirty Secrets, by Don Terry, Published: September 5, 1993]]
[[ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E5DF1639F933A05753C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times, Horse Show; Equestrians Facing Competition and Lingering Scandal, by Robin Finn, Published: October 30, 1995]]
I am posting this identical request to a number of horse-related talk pages, so you may see it more than once, for which i apologize in advance.
Sincerely, catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asken some questions regarding the file you uploaded. It would be good if you could respond. Beit Or 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there AdamKesher, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:AdamKesher. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tyre Mass Graves (PBS NewsHour).png. 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)