User talk:ליאור/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.


I've tried to contact Finlay, but he seems to have been inactive for a few weeks. Let me just consult a few other admins at WP:ANI first, but given your apology above, which I'm inclined to accept as genuine, I would personally tend towards unblocking you. Give me a day, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like four admins have commented, all four in favor of unblocking; if nobody's come by to unblock you in a day or two, feel free to drop me an email and I'll take care of it. Luna Santin 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, as there seem to be no objections, I'm going ahead and unblocking you. Welcome back! Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for sparing the time to review my request and past contributions! I won't fail your trust. Lior 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mk22logo.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mk22logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers

Hi there, the deletion was not because they were not notable, rather because the article does not state why exactly they were notable. See WP:MUSIC for what is considered notability, and state the claims of notability explicitly in the article. For example, the policy says having two albums from a reputed recording company or having a hit in (inter)national music charts is notable. So, in the article, it should be stated which two albums, or which music climbed up the charts. Plus, they claims should be backed up by at least one attribution to a reliable source (the AMG one is fine). ALl the best. --soum talk 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I couldnt notify at the Hebrew(?) wiki that you have linked. I was confused by this right to left thing, and couldnt get the words in proper order. --soum talk 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed that (hopefully), thanks! I'll ask mind meal to address your remarks. Lior 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense, the notability was established by two modes. First, the band is that of Henry "Pucho" Brown, a notable musician. Just because an article does not exist on a particular performer does not make them not notable. Also, the band had Chick Corea in it, which was later added to strengthen the case. This article was deleted without any reasons given, and is currently under deletion review. You did not even check the references, which served also to demonstrate notability.

Thank you User:Lior, btw, for your assistance in this endeavor. A deletion review has been initiated. (Mind meal 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Mind meal, notability isnt inherited from association, what the band did must be stated in the article unambiguously to assert notability. Not who were present in it. Thats why both "modes" were invalid. In deletion review, it was stated that the band had 25 albums, if this fact was stated in the article, this would have been a valid notability claim. And no protocols were side stepped, speedy deletion is a valid way to delete articles that does not assert why the subject is notable, at sight without any discussion. No one is going to google up the notability, they are going to read it off the article. And stub status does not excuses lack of or non assertion of notability.
Btw, I have replied at the DR. --soum talk 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

@Lior and Mind Meal, thanks for the words. I dont have any intention to sabotage anyone's work, but keeping this place clean is a tough task :( In the future, whichever article you create, just mention what the subject has done, that should be enough to prevent speedy deletion. All the best. --soum talk 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

recent deaths

Hi Lior,


When editing current events, please read the guidlines for inclusion:


"Do not list the ordinary deaths of prominent persons here. That's what recent deaths is for. Exceptions to this rule are made for persons of extreme prominence, such as Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, or the Queen Mother."


I don't know if you consider that person "extremely prominent" but I have never heard of him, and I have studied a pretty good amount about the Middle East. If it turns out that he was murdered then please re-add the story. I hope this helps.

peace

tony

This person does not even have an article on Wikipedia. I fail to see how his death is relevant to World news whatsoever. WikiTony 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As seen here, the featured article on the Yom Kippur War links to this missing article, and there's a featured article on him (he:אשרף מרואן) in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Perhaps there are articles in other languages as well, it's hard to tell with no interwiki. A quick Google test ("Ashraf+Marwan" "اشرف+مروان") also suggests he's of international relevance. Paris Hilton he ain't, but his acts (whatever they were) gravely affected that war. He was much more influential than Litvinenko for instance. Are you still skeptical? Lior 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As expected, the stubs Ashraf Marwan & أشرف مروان were added by other users today. Cheers, Lior 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Requesting your opinion

If you have a moment to spare, your opinion would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. Thank you. (Mind meal 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for notifying me, I just happenned to be around at the right time :-) I'm afraid your angry tone, as understandable as it is, alienates others towards opposing you. Have a look at WP:TIGER and nearby essays. Sometimes it's just better to say "fuck it, I'm going to bed", and get back to it after some good sleep. Cheers, Lior 09:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware I was coming across as angry. I just found it odd that everyone was discussing the deletion prior to my addition of references, and then everything went silent. Even depite this, those deletion votes still stand and it is very frustrating. They initially nominated each for speedy deletion, an idea that was shot down by astute administrators. You know if someone is going to vote because of personal grievances and not what is simply right, they shouldn't be permitted to vote at all (imo). I wouldn't call this anger. I'm just getting tired of all the silly "legal shit" that some editors love to engage in. Just look at the opening nomination, "I am not saying it may be considered interesting or useful, but it is not what an encyclopedia is, per policy." Notice mastery of English, too! Just kidding. I don't get nominations like that. It may be useful and it may be interesting, but let us delete it. Huh? (Mind meal 09:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, you know, we don't choose our fellow editors. Some are smart and some are dumb, some are nice and some are dicks. You came here to compose articles, which is one of the more rewarding kinds of activity available here. Deletion discussions are annoying per se, and defending your work at the first hours of such a discussion is especially annoying, as those who nominated it are inclined to support the deletion anyways. Along time, more opinions are heard and things settle down. Saying "this is ridiculous" and "I sure hope that people won't just be stubborn here" may be factually correct, but counter-productive to your cause - which is keeping your work and not fixing all the maladies of deletion discussions.
Besides, I think more articles are more desirable than more lists. The humungous barbarous number of categories, lists & templates in the English Wikipedia doesn't necessarily serve the reader. Sure some are useful, but perhaps you should concentrate on writing articles, where your work is less likely to be contested (though there are always dicks). Yours, Lior 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


fr:massacre de Qibya

Shalom Lior,
I tried to answer on your hebrew talk page but I never succeeded.
In April you made interesting comments on the talk page. Would you have a link to a reliable website in English introducing this material.
Thank you.
Alithien 08:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Kayla

Hello, Lior. Thank you for telling me about this, but I do not recall ever editing the article. You may have me concerned with another user. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you have revereted vandalisms in this article a couple of times, and I mistakenly inferred that you created the article in this edit. The "Hebrew meaning" was actually added on the 18th of March 2007 by an anon user. Some other unverified meanings were added on September 11 2007 by another anon user. I hope there's something correct in this short article. Lior (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kayla

Hi, I noticed your recent changes over at Kayla; however I'm not sure they belong there. Kayla deals with the name, while you've added info on Kayala which should probably belong over at Kayla language seeing how it deals with a Jewish version rather than the English version. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing my mistake. It's not Kayala but Kayla, the very same Kayla after which the Kayla language is named. As we discussed earlier, Kayla is not a Hebrew word or name. If you think the Greek name is of greater importance than the Agaw name, you can switch the order between them. As its origin is yet unknown (I only cited hypotheses), there might even be a link between the Greek name and the Agaw name. Yours, Lior (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)