|
User talk:Rami R/Archive 2
LogHi Rami, I saw you flagged the vote of user:Whiskeydog on the ACE2009/Voter log. Whiskeydog is an old alternate account of Dogriggr. As you can see, Dogriggr is still active. This information is not secret, and I am not sure why he voted with the old alternate account, but Risker, who deleted the Whiskeydog page, can confirm that this is a legitimate vote from an established and respected editor. --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfCYou are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposalAfter tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration. A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA pollYou are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps). As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be! Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended. Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored) Ikip 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) image thumbnail sizingAt the discussion for the deletion of File:JD Salinger.jpg, with regard to default image thumbnail sizing you said: "The (rarely used, and hopefully soon-to-be former) default thumbnail size is after-all 180px." I was wondering to what you were referring to, and if you could point me in the direction of such a discussion? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDAHi Rami R, you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes. 1) Background of VOTE 2: In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results. This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2? Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here. 3) How to help: Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience, Matt Lewis (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living peopleHello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begunThe RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea. Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls. Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome! Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Your closure of your RFAThat was bloody impressive. I'm afraid I was just moving to neutral, but on the basis of your clear ability to read consensus I'm looking forward to supporting next time. Awesome. Pedro : Chat 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I felt that the likelihood of passing was at most theoretical. But no matter; this has been an interesting experience, and I look forward to continuing here just as an editor (at least for the time being ;) ). Rami R 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerking at RPPHi there! Re this diff, is that a script you're running, or is the edit summary just incredibly good work on your part? If it's a script that duplicates the VOAbot's work, I would be HUGELY interested in having it! I hate having to manually clerk RPP. GedUK 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It turns out I was feeling up to the challenge, and I created a clerking script: User:Rami R/rfppClerk. It (currently) works on FF3.6 and IE8, but not on Chrome 4. Rami R 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_MoveHey dude, You may be interested to comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Seats background colorI know. I just used the same color which the infobox was using before (for the infobox borders). The colors should be similar to those of the party colors, but of course somewhat lighter if they make the numbers hard to read. -TheG (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Report of User:DouglasehallThanks for the report to AIV about Rami R. I've blocked him for obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion. However, next time it would be a great help if you report the case at the sockpuppetry investigations page. That way it's easier for us to track additional sockpuppetry instances if the user decides to continue. Thanks! Icestorm815 • Talk 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Report of User:JrryjudeHi Rami, Thanks for catching the ommision on the Herzl page to cite the location of the documents on Norman, The letter is at the Central Zionist Archives in Jersualem. It located within the secured Herzl rooms with his other family papers. Any quoted material needs to have its location verifieable for future researchers. Jrryjude (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC) formatThat is the simple format that was created in good faith, you also have no right to alter it to whar you want, please don't derail what is the culmination of a lot of users contributions. Over 120 users have vote commented ad this is the format that was opened and it is supported my a vast majority of users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC) sixty supports and only forty oppose is a fair percentage for a tool, the is 66 point six percentage minimum pass support, if that is a minimum it is absolutely fine, more than that would be unfair requirement for a tool that is in operation as we speak and the wheels are not dropping off. If there is less than 66.6 percent approval for the continued use in some form then the tool is rejected, that is a pretty fair position to both sides of the position imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Archive sizeReadability and technical issues You are correct that WP:TOOLONG is about the article namespace and most of its guidelines really only apply to articles, but technical limitations apply equally to all namespaces. Archives in excess of 200kb will be difficult--if not impossible--to display on many mobile devices. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Jerusalem bulldozer attackThe article Jerusalem bulldozer attack you nominated as a good article has passed It's raining thanks spam!
You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) RfPP scriptHey there Rami. Would you mind looking at this edit. It says that there are 2 requests pending but all of them seems to have been handled. The only explanation I could come up with was that because there were two requests, Tariq Aziz and Template:Treehouse of Horror, where the RfPP was not the last comment, it didn't recognize that the request was handled. Anyways, hope you can fix it. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey again Rami. Could you please look at this edit? For some reason there's some duplicating going on. Elockid (Talk) 05:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, I'm not sure if this is how I'm meant to reply to you. I apologise for what you feel are "disruptive edits" but I am trying to include information that Wikipedia currently doesn't have. As it stands Jerusalem is claimed by two parties, and while the Knesset meets in Jerusalem, the majority of international bodies do not recognise it as the capital of either. I believed Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, and when asked in a quiz I recently lost £500 because the UN, and my own country's Foreign Office do not recognise the move of Israel's capital from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in the 50s. I am not arguing that it shouldn't be regarded as the capital of either area, I just think it should be recorded that both claims are disputed, and just as the Palestinian state's article lists alternative capitals, the internationally recognised capital of Tel-Aviv should be given also. I understand that this is a sensitive subject, and I do not mean to appear "disruptive" or cause offence but wikipedia should have more detail than "though [it is] not internationally recognized as such." If Jerusalem is not "internationally recognised as such" then where is? -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The wikipedia articles on United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and Positions on Jerusalem both also cite the UN's non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, while United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 shows that right from the early days of de facto Israeli control over Jerusalem the UN didn't recognise it as fully within Israel -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I linked to the wikipedia articles rather than each individual source of the wikipedia articles. Resolution 194 showed that the UN didn't recognise Israeli control over Jerusalem at a time when the capital was indisputably Tel-Aviv. If it was the word "capital" that you object to, would you prefer it if my edit read "[Jerusalem] is self-proclaimed as the capital city of both Israel and the Palestinian State, though not internationally recognized as such in either case. [iii] A united Israel would be the largest city in terms of area and population in either nation. Those countries which do not recognise Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as the capital generally recognise Ramallah or Gaza instead as the seats of government, while the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem itself, most countries which do not recognise it as such, retain their permanent diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the previous undisputed capital."? Upon re-reading the Tel-Aviv article I see this already mentions that it was the capital and that most countries kept their embassies there because they didn't recognise Jerusalem, and I'm happy with that, although I would have expected it to be higher up in the article. -Alex
-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC) TypoYou mean "even when it's clear the vandal is not going to stop", right? 28bytes (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
RollbackThis may not make any difference, since you may be an admin in two days, but do you want me to request your having rollback? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Your RFAHang on in there! At 77% and with some very weak oppose arguments any 'crat worth their salt closing it now would clearly pass it. I appreciate it's tough however :). I'm suprised there is less commentary to be honest, as you're the only one running - however *most* of the feedback is useful. There's no question in my mind you'd use the tools well and will only benefit WP with them. Pedro : Chat 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are now an administratorCongratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 Congratulations on your successful RfA, Rami R! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please revisit the WP:AIV for User:69.118.143.13. I have responded to your comment on the AIV page. 24fan24 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Issue with RFPP ClerkThere's an issue with RFPP clerk where if a section is completely emptied it bunches it together with the next section. I've fixed this in my userspace copy of the RFPP clerk. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
TwinkleHello, do you know who should I see or complain to for my Twinkle restoration?--NovaSkola (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Vandal alert.Sorry to disturb you, but can you please block the address 118.137.75.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It is currently being used by the now infamous Indonesian misinformation vandal, who is inserting minsinformation into Little League and Pokemon related articles. Need your action ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) There has been an ongoing attack on the series being called "black comedy", each time from a different IP, as pure vandalism with blank edit summaries. For the sake of concision, these are the diffs that reverted the vandal edits: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Here is the note that Xeworlebi left, with a sarcastic yet justifiable comment that "no one [was] going to read [it]": do not change or remove "black comedy". There is, of course, a handful of "regular" vandal diffs, laced in between those I have listed above. Please reconsider my request for semi-protection. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting my user page
hebrewyou beat me to it! i was just about to take that sentence out too. wtf?Thisbites (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
RFPP clerkThere was an issue today with the RFPP clerk failing because someone had added spaces to the unprotection title. I've fixed the page, but this should also help. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Premature semi-protecion on SundaeI was working on the Sundae article, due to the google doodle event, cleaning it up and rewriting the recipe section, and you semi-protected it, claiming "persistent vandalism." I was in and out of the page for quite a long time -- from 8:33 to 9:46, according to the history logs, i was researching, wiki-linking, and checking data against linked wp pages for consitency of information -- and i saw NO vandalism at all during that time. Did you think that *i* was a vandal because i was not logged in and made multiple changes? If so, shame on you for failing to look at my work or to assume good faith. If you saw evidence of "persistent vandalism," please tell me where and when -- i saw NO SUCH THING. I despise wp editors who think that a professional writer who donates time here and has done so for many years is "vandalizing" pages by editing them from an IP address. This has happened to me repeatedly when i use my IP address. It is arrogant and shows bad form. So, of course, i took the time to log in, finish my most recent edit that i got locked out of, and then came to you and complained -- but because of your arrogance, i won't finish working on the article by editing the historical section. Rudeness is such a turn-off when your staff consists of volunteers. cat yronwode "Ol' 64" and also Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
|
