I will not have a chance to look carefully at the article until Sunday/Monday. As I said, if the information is redisseminated to the parent articles, I am fine with deleting this one. I think the HRW is OK, and I think there is someomore stuff that could be added to teh AI article. -- Avi 22:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hamas iraq logo.JPG. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:4col2.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell me why you removed my recent addition to Iraq War?

However, the next day, the Iran-based Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr called for three days of peaceful protests instead of militia action.^[1]

It seems that you replaced that with a lot of speculation and reports of short-term protests. Such reports do not exist in any other section of the article.

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Article size and let me know why you feel it is appropriate to insert such material in a 200 kB article. I look forward to your reply. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. My inclination is to agree: we should include a sentence about reactions to the SOFA by the people and both political and spiritual leaders in Iraq in the introduction, and a paragraph more in the body, but we should wait a week to see how the cards fall. However, if the protests turn out to be for just that one day, and everything normalizes with respect to leaders' and the general political situation, then what is the point? I do not want to see Wikipedia used as a WP:SOAPBOX to highlight negative reactions to the agreement any more than I want to see it used to glorify an unpopular agreement. But for what is basically the longest content article in the encyclopedia, filled with hundreds of thousands of deaths, we should stick to just the facts for at least the first week. This coming Thursday let's see if we can round-up and summarize the political developments surrounding the reactions to the agreement. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found anything on how generally those opposed consider the SOFA part of the occupation? I am seeing conflicting views on the matter.[1][2] Maybe that is what the anonymous diplomats were talking about: Those who see the SOFA as part of the occupation, rather than the terms and conditions for its end, will naturally be opposed. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for uploading File:Bushduck.PNG. Can you provide more specific source information (other than just "White House") so that we can verify that the image is really in the public domain?

I believe its a screnshot from a US-gov video. Is this video online? Does it have a number on the Library of Congress? Thanks. --Damiens.rf 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have moved the image to commons that more wiki could use the image .just please as soon as possible clarify the source information otherwise it would be deleted both from commons and enwiki --Mardetanha ^talk 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		In a time when all images are under attack, this barnstar is for taking a risk, subjecting yourself to pointless nit-picking, and going the extra mile in uploading File:Bushduck.PNG. Nosfartu, we desperatly need less bureaucrats and more editors like you on wikipedia. travb (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also stops any silly copyright arguments on Muntadhar al-Zaidi. travb (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, glad to help :)--Nosfartu (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Lead up to the Iraq War, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lead up to the Iraq War. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Ignore what I deleted. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but all you did was copy the first part of the main Iraq war article into the new article. If you're going to make a new article, you'll need more than that, no offense. Perhaps summarizing Northern Watch, Oil For Food, etc would make it better. I apologize if this seems a little brash. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Again, apologies if I seem brash here. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tried to fix one little vandalism, and I give up. Please try your edit again... -- Kendrick7^talk 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hadn't even noticed until I got your message. Thanks for the heads up --Nosfartu (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== Gaza aid shipment ==f

Hi Nosfartu,

You are making edits to wording that was reached by consensus in the discussion section. The change is minor but was a big point of contention. I am going to revert it to the agreed upon wording. Feel free to join the discussion and make suggestions as to which changes you think are best and why :)

Zuchinni one (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the edits I'm referring to are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&diff=prev&oldid=365449946

Zuchinni one (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big piece of it. It originally referred to the International reactions section, but since the wording discussed has been added to the lead as well the arguments should apply there too. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash#International_Reaction_2 Zuchinni one (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Nosfartu, I saw the recent adding of statements from Avigdor Lieberman to balance the Lead. I have two concerns about it:

1) Lieberman is a hugely controversial figure, even in Israel 2) The lead needs to remain short. -- It was for this very reason that there was a big debate over what to put in the lead so that it referred to the international reactions without getting overlong or being biased.

I'm not going to make any changes, but please consider cutting down the lead to very important facts and in the case where those facts are statements from one group or another ... that they somehow be both balanced and short. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There just ought to be some response to the international community, whether it is from the MFA, IDF, Prime Minister, etc.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact ... after thinking about it again I STRONGLY suggest you remove the Lieberman quote. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find another quote.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'In response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the incident "a clear case of self-defense".'[3]--Nosfartu (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Awesome better than Lieberman ... its a more neutral quote too! Zuchinni one (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really aware of the politics, just figured he was in charge of diplomatic affairs. Thanks for the input.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nosfartu, You're clearly putting a lot of good work into this article. Keep it up! NickCT (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) --Nosfartu (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that. I was about to reply, and fan the flames further. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only notifying you that your NPOV template has been removed . Maashatra11 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! NPOV templates usually shouldn't be removed until there is a consensus reached that indeed the problem has been resolved. Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you insisting on adding "According to the IDF"? It gives only the opinion of the IDF and sounds non-neutral --Maashatra11 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't my only particular way to have the caption read, a number of editors have put forth a number of proposals with varying rationales. I'd refer you to the talk page for some of what I've been hoping to accomplish.

The most appropriate place to discuss improvements to the article is the article's talk page where there is already an ongoing discussion. The tag on the article is to direct people to that discussion until there is a consensus. Sometimes this takes awhile, but we shouldn't panic and we should remember there is no absolute deadline.--Nosfartu (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What exactly was not neutral in my wording that made you put the NPOV tag? It would be nice from you if you answer this question and not refer me to the "talk page". I'm asking you a very simple question. --Maashatra11 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A number of editors have expressed WP:PRIMARY and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV concerns. I don't want to mischaracterize what they have said, so that is why I would refer you to the talk page.--Nosfartu (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. If the image is merely considered Primary source, I suggest to remove it from the article. Wikipedia is not original research. What do you think of this idea?--Maashatra11 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since secondary sources have discussed it, it may be alright to use as long as we directly attribute what we are saying to a secondary source. Anyways, even if we both agree there are three or four other people who might disagree. Hope I haven't come off as conflicting. I'm off to lunch now. Happy editing, --Nosfartu (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded in a new subsection. Sorry for dragging this on, but I think it's important. I'm going to bed now, cheers.  —Rafi  05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be on Wikipedia for at least a few days, so I may not be looking at it for awhile (or knowing my memory, maybe at all). Hopefully it gets resolved one way or another. Thanks for the courtesy notice,--Nosfartu (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosfartu, For the Kim Davis article, although there is no policy ordering you to do so, per guidelines and courtesy would you please consider no longer using the URL format you have been using and instead use the {{cite news}} citation format that everyone else has been consistently using in that article? Per WP:CITEVAR, an article shouldn't switch between styles, but should use the established format. The cite news template format has been established by all of us who have been maintaining that article from the beginning. If you would do so it would be considerate (others of us have had to correct from your style to the established style). Take a look at the article and many other quality articles and you'll see what I mean. For example, you could copy one of the other refs and just fill in the blanks. I am more than willing to help you; please ask me anytime. Thank-you and thanks for everything you have done lately for the article! Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]