User talk:Jonur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation issues

To make a long story short, let me know if you can find verification that Ahmed Attar leads MMOJ. Thanks. I am using a spelling I found here just now by the producer/manager which shows that "Ahmed Attar" is ok to use too despite the other spelling also having been used in the past. All of the people of those families could be spelled El Attar, el-Attar, etc. Just trying to be consistent.

Found answer is yes about Ahmed A's leading other band, re: talk page history, not concerned about that now. Emerman 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your question previously about the seeming unnecessariness to have the additional page for "featuring Bachir Attar"...Ok, I agree and have redirected to avoid having to retype everything twice. The page was needed but only as a redirect. Emerman 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. Redirect is probably the best approach. As for "Attar" vs. "El Attar", I actually got the spelling (and the statement that Ahmed Attar leads the MMoJoujouka) from one of your submissions on the Talk page of the other group but I see you have changed the spelling and queried the statement. I will see what I can ascertain. (P.S. Where do you get the time? :-) Jonur 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am in fact not going to have the time forever, that's for sure. Listen, I have seen the various spellings of the name, but I feel pretty confident that the spelling is good enough. Even their manager used it in a publication. The Attars in both groups have the same spelling issues. Particularly Hadj Abdesalam Attar often had his name spelled "el-Attar", but for simplicity's and consistency's sake, rather than making people seem so different, we should probably just go with "Attar" - unless it's preferred by the bands for some reason that they each choose a different way to spell their names (I may inquire about that). We can just keep in mind the name is sometimes spelled El Attar and el-Attar. Perhaps a Wikipedia article about the subject of the spelling of such names would be interesting. Someone familiar with the culture should write that, a linguist or a native of the area.
I found just now in the Talk page history file that Ahmed A is indeed leading the other group according to the MMjoujouka producer's affirmation in an old post. So I don't have that question any more. Just about spelling consistency. I didn't realize I had put the El Attar spelling in the article! I've added questions to the talk page because I don't think private email will suffice given the depth of the producer's feelings on the dispute. I think all will need to read his sources for his views etc and consider it all in the talk page of MMJoujouka. I don't know that I'll have time for this much longer, will leave to others if I run out of time. But Reliable sourcing needs to be followed. Emerman 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Pipes of Pan comment - I was not using that book as a "fact" reference and it was an oversight anyway

I went through today looking for anywhere I might have put the Pipes of Pan in the references list and found it in Pipes of Pan with a note from you. Could you next time please draw my attention to it directly on my talk page first so I can answer you what was going on and explain a good faith accidental error or at least see if I made one by asking? I did not in fact take "facts" from that book at all in the article. It was only in there as a "further reading" and only by oversight; I was thinking of the second album by Joel Rubiner and not as facts but as further reading. I haven't done an article on the second album, either. And it would only belong in Further Reading for the second album. It has nothing to do with Pipes of Pan at all but I have been mixing my further reading into my references and as I've said before I intend to separate the References into Footnotes and Further reading when I have a chance to sleep. I was tired, had done tons of work that day, which you, I think, know from asking me how I had the time.

Please assume good faith and ask me in a place I'm going to see it quickly (my talk page) first before putting up a criticism on an article talk page that I might not be able to answer you as quickly; it was not intended as a source of any fact on that page. It was a further reading, and a mistaken one because it has nothing to do with that album; it was written after the first album and was not about the first album at all. I went earlier tonight removing that fictionalized book from the "References" list of another article after remembering it was fictionalized, and could not remember where else I might have had it. I see now it was on Pipes of Pan but only by mistake. I agree with that totally and if you see it in References anywhere else please take it out unless it's a sentence about the Davis book itself. It would not have been intended as a source of fact by me. If you would read the article, it clearly does not mention anything in that book to begin with. I cited the Palmer articles for instance, not the Davis article. It was just an accident from doing too many articles in one day and from before I realized how fictionalized the book was. I thought I'd taken it out of everything already. I have it in "further reading" on the "jajouka" group because of their second album currently but if you don't even want it there, take it out. I've tried to make sure no fact in any article is from that book. Thanks. Emerman 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a good book I found referenced recently at one of frank's websites talking about a different book by Davis that was not a fictionalized account. The history of the Rolling Stones he wrote in 2001 called Old Gods Almost Dead has lots of info on the jajouka story. Check it out. I just checked it out at the library. Emerman 05:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to your message

Jonur, as I mentioned before, I have disregarded the Jajouka Rolling Stone book though I believe the reason he had to make it a fable is likely because it contained true information he was too much a wimp to chance getting in a problem about, not because it wasn't true, though that is irrelevant whether it's true or not. I get confused about the timeline though because the liner notes to the Rubiner album say it was recorded in summer 1972 and I can't remember when the Jajouka Rolling Stone book says it was recorded - I know it set part of it in Jan. 1973, which is after it was finished being recorded in reality. So I have put that book behind me. It to a small degree caused me to be a little tendentious in my first article talk page comments to Frank re: Hamri (books mentioned his firing, but people do get fired sometimes) also of which were echoed by things I saw the other manager say in the article talk page similar to the Davis book. I regret getting a little overly excited at first but I have taken time to appreciate Hamri's work now. I have his Tales of Joujouka and I like his artwork. But that doesn't mean I agree with having him take credit for more than he can be shown in verified articles to have the right to say belongs to him. Normally a cover art painter or manager does not make such claims. (Also, the main reason I had been irritated when I arrived, I was just reminded by a Frank comment, is that he added allusions to articles by his coworkers at Sub Rosa at the article Talk Page before I arrived, as evidence to support his COI edits hostile to B. A.'s group, not Davis's book at all.) The jajouka band, I saw today at their myspace page, has listed their post 1982 players for Bachir's version and they say all of them previously also played with his father. Given that the Stones (Continental Drift song, 1989), Rolling Stone mag (1989), and the POINT music record co. rereleasing the album recognized Bachir A, then there is nothing backing up a claim that the Pipes of Pan belongs moved into the discog of the other group that began in 1995 on Sub Rosa. I am wondering if what they are wanting to do is try to have the album in both bands' discogs or something. Please read a lot on the reliable sources rules and Wikipedia: Conflict of interest before accepting disputed rumors attacking what is accepted in the industry as B.A.'s group without extraordinary sourcing. You are the one who asked me to redirect MMOJ featuring B.A. over to MMOJaj, so I think you must get the drift of things.

I did not think you meant to answer the thing urgently & of course I knew you meant good faith but I had found a tag seemingly based partly on your comment so I felt it urgent to explain to you it was just an early mistake. The thing is that that book is one of the few places that shows activities Hamri did that are also positive, so without it as a source, it's unfortunate but there is little in the way of citations to back up any idea Hamri did much between the serving as a guide and translator in the 1971 Palmer article and the period of 1995 where he shows up in the press while managing a band on Sub Rosa. Claims that he has more rights than that of someone who illustrated an album cover are not backed up in fact and the Rolling Stones and also the record label both recognized Bachir Attar's group as the successor group. Hamri does not show up in the 1989 article in Rolling Stone and the musicians who at some point split from Bachir Attar, finding him too young to lead after his father's death, returned and are listed in the record personnel list for the Bachir Attar albums. There are a couple of 1980-82 period films I am going to hunt for too. The attempted staging of a rumor of mass 'controversy' about Bachir Attar's reputation by the Sub Rosa producer appears to me to be trumped up to use wikipedia to rewrite history. I am going to have to review all edits I have made that make statements *assuming* that Hamri did certain things I have no proof of except that people said it here in wikipedia before I got here. I was assuming he managed more than it may be provable he did, just because I was believing Frank. When I look at who is interviewed and who is mentioned on album covers, I do not see Hamri playing any major role at all except to design an album cover and that we know he got them some gigs in the 1950s and was a guide translator in a 1971 article and that's it as far as what we know till 1995. Unless you take the 1993 davis book in consideration, which we have thrown out of consideration.

The 1993 book is one of the few places in the media he's mentioned as a character on the scene. He has no mentions after 1971 until he pickets Bachir to get publicity in an article about a then upcoming B. Attar show where he got a couple of sentences mentioning he was annoyed and might picket; 99% of the article was about bachir a, and not hamri. Hamri's name was alluded to in Ranaldo's piece when he was trying to work out the dispute but Ranaldo performed live and recorded with B.A. not a group by Hamri; he just noted they had let him know they were competing with Bachir A and he mentioned it, then went on to do his interview with B.A. This publication is not the place for Frank to try to propagandize about Hamri's personal gripes and rewrite history by taking advantage of wiki format openness. He doesn't read any of the guidelines at all evidently and I partly blame admins for not introducing him to the guidelines when he got here. I hope you know where all the guidelines are; see my page for a few if you need a link resource.

Please see the 2001 Davis book on the Rolling Stones (not the 1993 book on jajouka). It is an authorized history. The fact he wrote a previous book in fiction form does not have anything to do with his reputation as a journalist (he has written a lot) and it does reflect his current work. He recognized Bachir Attar and didn't even mention hamri, who was irrelevant to the story, evidently. I learned of the later book from seeing Frank take a sentence out of context from the book on his website to imply the book attacks Bachir Attar. So I promised Frank in email I would find it. He told me he figured Davis might not much care for Bachir A's group now but when I found the book, the one sentence mentioning a modernist v. traditionalist faction of 1989 was reflecting something he'd said previously. It's clear Davis didn't change his view and I was being misled in the email. I looked at the book, available in any library, and saw that he was saying that by 1989 the factions were coming back together for the Rolling Stones visit under Bachir's leadership because evidently he could get them work and whatever they did with Hamri didn't get them any work in the 1980s. I heard there was some manager named Rikki Stein I have to look up info on who apparently toured with some of the musicians in the 1980s, not Hamri. There is a lot for me to learn but very little documented information showing any rights of Hamri to anything other than to proudly say he painted the original artwork on the first album.

I hope people will go to the library and do some work reading articles such as Palmer's before leaping to any conclusions based on things said about me in talk pages when I actually tried in good faith to get frank to work together with me and have about given up. I will try hard to get the footnotes put with the articles very soon. I had things to do today but I must footnote my work so people can understand my efforts are good faith and sincere. I will sit down with my books and articles and try to footnote now. Then eventually after the inevitable arguing ends I hope some day we can get to more info about the lore and the music. Frank could have been invaluable in helping with info on that but he focuses, as representative of the Hamri official website and MMOJouj website in only on trying to remove works from Bachir Attar's group's name and move them somehow into his. Please make good footnoting before making any dire changes because this stuff is affecting people's careers and reputations. I feel worn out trying to keep up with it and hope that really good researchers will get involved soon. I have ordered today a copy of the Brian Jones original album just to make sure I have a copy since frank is circulating around copies of the cover and not sharing a copy with me to see even though I'd asked him previously for scans of things. I regret he wouldn't work cooperatively with me. I don't know why FayssalF was sent a copy but hopefully FassaylF will know what is a false claim if he knows anything about music journalism. He has a lot to do though. I hope to eat dinner, try to do a bit of footnoting and get caught up and try to get this headache behind me. I have got to get OUT of this article stuff. I have way too many other things to do.

if wikipedia won't protect artists from having their reps and histories by people using name similarities to mislead by directly editing in articles about themselves or their bands, hopefully the other group will deal with wikipedia themselves; i can't deal with fooling with it much longer and i'm very disappointed there are not more music journalist wikipedians out there who have the albums and know the facts and can do a better job than I at seeing through the bull and getting things straight. It must be awfully obscure if it requires you and me to go hunting for albums to find the truth. good luck, jonur. Emerman 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand what you are saying about worrying that print sources aren't reliable. Please read Wikipedia: Reliable sources. We have no choice according to the rules here but to go by other reliable print sources (as opposed to biased self published documents and open letters attacking others), not primary sources or independent research. Please reread the rules on no independent research because you cannot cite to independent research. If you try to base an article on private investigation you are violating the rules here. So please go back and reread the rules. No one has said that Davis (who has a wiki page about him) is a bad journalist just because he wrote a fiction book. And the fact that it may include a discussion of a firing doesn't mean he was "trying" to harm someone; he just didn't want to get into a hassle. Those people have violent histories over there; even Bachir A was shown to be one who would protect himself with a knife in one part of the book. maybe he was afraid of people at the time. If Frank disputes Davis so much then one would think he wouldn't have led me to Davis's other book by quoting from it on his page. Speaking of not relying on books, Hamri's Tales of Joujouka, which I admire for the colorful tales, has a story speaking unpleasantly of Djinouin in one story but I don't take that as a reason to assume any motives about Hamri. The Rolling Stones book by Davis is mostly about the Rolling Stones, not jajouka. I see it as highly relevant.

And if you would go to the library and read the Palmer articles, you will not see anyone painted in any negative way, nor will you see Davis paint Hamri or anyone from jajouka in a negative light in the Rolling Stones book. Well I hope I have made sense. We just need to do a good job citing things and not accepting claims as fact without seeing evidence since there are disputes involved. Some articles need less footnoting but these will need lots of it like any disputed topics do. I will work on it soon. Emerman 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about how to archive a talk page

if you end up with a really long talk page and eventually need to archive it, there are links in wikipedia about how to Archive. I recall it involves using Move and creating a subpage like "archive1" and then in my case I prefer to blank it and move it to History so people don't keep editing it and it gets out of search engines. Some weeks from now if you need to archive the page for readability (or refactor) and don't know how, let me know and I'll try to help. Emerman 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: link to article

Hi, Jonur, I found your link useful re: 1989 Palmer article. I could read the PDF easier and found a useful sentence about Hamri leading Gysin to the village on p. 105 good for citing. I am going to need to inquire whether we are able to link to sites violating copyrights by hosting copyrighted material however. While I think we should make use of this excellent scan by frank for the article's research, I don't think we can actually put the link in the article. We could put it in the talk page though. I will double check with the help desk. I had previously mentioned the article in the references. Emerman 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the ongoing Joujouka/Jajouka story

Feelings seem to be running very strong here, perhaps mirroring the bad blood between the two groups of musicians in the village. I also feel that Emerman is trying to do too much too quickly – at least she/he seems to be under tremendous pressure, for reasons which I cannot imagine (is there a deadline for getting the facts right on Wikipedia?).

Responding to some of the factual content in the above note by Emerman:

1.

The year the word Joujouka is first used is not relevant to the fact the record industry, the rolling stones band, Rolling Stone Magazine (1989 interview), and record labels (Laswell's, Peter Gabriel's, and Point Music rerelease of P of P album) recognized Bachir A's group as being successor.

- Specifically, I quote from that same "Robert Palmer Rolling Stone article dated March 23rd 1989". On page 184, beginning of third paragraph, it says "Jnuin, the old chief, is dead, and it is his son, twenty-seven-year-old Bachir Attar, who greets me as I slide off the burro." Nowhere does Palmer say anything like "Bachir, who succeeded his father" or "Bachir, the new leader of the MMoJ". Curiously also, he uses the Joujouka spelling throughout, though that is another battle. - If recognition by a record label is to be taken as a sign of legitimacy, Sub Rosa is a perfectly reputable record company with a notable track record. Therefore, the fact that it published several CDs by the MMoJou should also confer legitimacy on them, by the same token. - The fact that the Rolling Stones or anyone else worked with Bachir Attar is not, of itself, absolute proof that his faction is the only legitimate one (much as he would like).

2.

The members of B. Attar's group were all from his father's group

.

Evidently. Every single musician in the village was from his father's group. So the group that recorded on Sub Rosa were also "all from Bachir's father's group". The problem is, apparently, that not all the musicians were willing to accept Bachir as leader upon the death of his father. And that also casts doubts on the idea that leadership of the MMoJ is passed on automatically from father to son. Was Jnuin preceded by his father in turn?

Without extra good sourcing we can't just go taking the album out of one band's discog and put it into another's.

Until the death of old Jnuin, there was apparently only one group, and only one shared history. When the "Brian Jones presents" album was recorded on 29th July 1968 and released on 8 October 1971, there was only one group of MMoJ. Therefore, both groups currently operating in the village are heirs to that recording and to the ancestral heritage. Incidentally, you can see what is apparently the release notes and insert of the original "Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan..." 1971 LP issue "here".

While I have been writing this, I notice some new messages on this page. My comments - if it is not permitted to reference sites that are in breach of copyright, I will remove the links I added earlier to the Oui and Palmer articles. However, they are useful background information, so I hope they will inform this whole issue.

Again, Emerman, I think you need to take your time. This is not a life and death issue, and rushing things can only be counterproductive. Yours in good faith, and peace. Jonur 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonur. Thanks for the message. I've just started a section at the article talkpage to sort out the issue. Please participate (Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka#The debate over factual accuracies). -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i replied at fayssalf's place

The point i'm trying to make is we have to cite sources for everything, even my first stabs at beginning the disambiguation were influenced by Frank's assertions without my checking for sources. The more I check the less I feel we can show is backed up by third party documentation about claims the other band shares a history other than they were in the village. There is no evidence to assert that anyone in the village playing an instrument is a master musician and the other band disputes this. I will be looking at album personnel listings for info as well but the Bachir Attar members also played with Jnuin. The 1982 split branch returned to bachir Attar in the 1990s. We don't have any proof the 1995 Sub Rosa group played at all with Jnuin. They may be cousins or something but they were not deemed as representatives of the group itself. They use a similar name. Sub Rosa did not say they were the same group. Frank tries to claim it here but he does not have any reputable magazine saying it, only wikipedia, which he can change himself. We are not supposed to be deciding history here; we are supposed to be reflecting what other publications have said and recognized about the groups. Emerman 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You question that the "Sub Rosa" band played with Jnuin. You suggest that they may be just cousins but not "genuine" master musicians. I am beginning to doubt your impartiality on this issue, since you seem to give the Bachir Attar group the benefit of any doubt, but are not willing to extend the same courtesy to the "Sub Rosa" group. It would be interesting to find a list of all the MMoJ in the Brian Jones period, if such a thing exists. As to whether "the 1982 split group returned to Bachir in the 1990s", I wonder what your documentary sources are for that. You say "they may be cousins but .. were not deemed as representatives of the group itself". Why? Deemed by who? Why does one side merit more credit than the other? Jonur 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I said the other band disputed it. And then when I looked at everything I have put in the article I begin to see a need to cite sources on all info in the article. I appreciate the link to the album cover you sent. That helps. Wish I hadn't ordered it yesterday, costs money. I did not say I am not willing to extend courtesies to both groups. you are going on things people have said that are not documented in articles. I am saying I have not found articles to back up some of what I had previously assumed was true that Frank had said which I myself included in the article. We have to, by the rules, only put information in that has good sourcing. You don't want to use good sourcing when dealing with claims that some band was in a previous band. Even Frank's webpage doesn't say that. Only you say it and our article says it because of implications you and I inferred from things Frank implied on a talk page. You and I have not been following proper citation form is what I am trying to tell you. I looked at the CITE style page and it had a tag for "citation needed" and we are going to need to make use of those in both articles most likely. THAT is what I have been trying to tell you. I will work on footnoting my work and I am trying to tell you that following this has been confusing to me. I did not say I preferred one group's claim to the other. I said I am following what the industry has shown they recognized, not what someone said on a talk page could be inferred from spellings, comments that are not shown to be factual by independent third party articles. I know you mean well, but I don't think you are actually very practiced in sorting out unsourced claims and I'm not either or I wouldn't have included so much of them in the article. The fact that I am looking critically at my own past inclusion of info I now begin to doubt as I try to find sources to cite to back it up has nothing to do with you rude implication doubting my neutrality. I didn't doubt your neutrality. I just am doubting that either you or I have done the proper research. I find all it to be amateurish and poorly handled in all respects including my inclusion of things about the Sub Rosa band I cannot verify from outside articles yet (but will look and maybe I'll find things backing it up). That has nothing to do with me being non-neutral. In fact, maybe we DO already have articles backing up the other band's thing.
It's about being a critical reader even of my own previous submissions of info I'm confused about that I assumed was true and got from Frank while I was acting in good faith. If I was biased I wouldn't have had them "sharing a history" to begin with in my initial attempts at disambiguation, which you seem to forget I am the one who included. But I am beginning to think this is a 1995 recording group from the village from what I can tell and I haven't found anything online saying otherwise, yet, except through implication and a band website. I am sure eventually I will find good source material to make me feel less nervous about having said they also have the same history.
I did not edit your link because I was seeking advice on the meaning of the guidelines. I also haven't removed anything about the shared history verbiage that I put into the thing in the first place during disambiguation. Please do not attack me regarding my good faith. I have worked a lot harder on this than you give me credit for and have been to the library, not just looking on the web for easy things to find but gone out and gotten microfilm, and I hope you will too on the other articles. More articles are also needed. I'd like to get more but I'm still having to answer things like this from you. Now I hope to get to the library if you give me a moment. Thanks. Emerman 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I've just been plain confused today. We do have about two articles showing publications think the "joujouka" spelled folks are master musicians of the village so I will feel safe with my previous inclusion of them having a "shared" history without worrying about it. Emerman

[edit] Re anonymous IPs

I had to come in to correct a mistake I had made somewhere in a talk page re: my receiving a copy of the album you showed me a PDF of (original Pipes of Pan). Mine lacked the page 7 stuff in the PDF which surprised me. I mentioned it at the album article talk page and I also saw frank had mentioned me at his page and I got a little offended but I relaxed and tried to reread what he said. It implied that maybe the parties and he were trying to work something out. I hope they do. I am here before I log off to tell you two things:

One, I haven't been editing since a couple of days ago in articles themselves and still would like to avoid being in the talk pages if I am not addressed by anyone (frank had mentioned me in his page or I wouldn't have said as much today other than to notate the album I got was lacking something I expected). And two, since I saw you in my watch list that you'd reverted something by an anonymous IP (I don't know what) in the village article, I want to thank you for doing that. I don't know what sort of edit it was but I would be monitoring for that exact thing in the Jajouka article if I were still editing. I appreciate that you're looking for that. I imagine all sorts of edits could be made by both camps in there. Perhaps you should request semiprotection. I'm not going to look at the article you had to revert because that stuff will stress me out. Frankly I'd rather there be semiprotection so no one confuses me with these anonymous IPs. But if you think it's not necessary that's up to you.

you can reply here at your page if you have something to say but this was more a notice than a conversation.. best wishes, Emerman 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your comment on a talk page on the village, though I didn't see the latest edits. You mentioned someone from NY deleted Hamri from the page. Of course hamri belongs in an article about that village. I myself reverted similar things of that nature. If someone removes Hamri or frank's band from the village page, I totally agree they should be put back. The Hamri book cover seemed relevant to the Bou Jeloud discussion as well unless some other better image is located. I don't know what exactly are the last edits since I edited (I only looked at your talk page comment) but I am a little concerned and may drop a note to Szvest about request for semi-protect. I don't want myself to be confused as doing whatever is going on in there. I'm sick of people removing Hamri and frank's band from the village page, and that's the problem with me not continuing to edit -- if I stay out then I can't revert them as I normally would have, but I'm staying out of direct editing to articles. Please do not hesitate to revert a vandalism when it's crystal clear that Hamri and the other band both belong in the article about the band. Emerman 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: tagging articles

re: the MMOJ articles tagged, I don't know what you dispute but please edit as you like or discuss in talk pages what needs fixing to reach consensus. I don't know the process but FayssalF stated it should be discussed on the page, and he's the only admin involved in the pages thus far. I'm not getting involved in debates on the facts and do not have the energy to argue about what should go in. At worst if new changes make the articles worse or unfactual, it is not my concern any more. Maybe good things will happen in the future though. Emerman 04:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message. You're right, I do disagree with having two articles for one album just because of a tiff between those who made it; we should have one article that gives the facts and explains the problem. Have you joined in the merge discussion at the Talk page? I'll go there and explain my position. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visit to Joujouka

Hi Fayssal. I see you mentioned on Mel's talk page that you are thinking of a visit to Joujouka. An excellent idea. I will be very interested to hear your impressions. I have never been there myself and don't speak the language. However, I was in Morocco last Xmas and actually drove past Tetuan but didn't stop. My lasting memory of Tetuan was the huge open-air sheep market along the road heading south towards Chefchaouen. Jonur 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jonur. It is nice to hear you visited the area before. I am from Tetouan but live in Casablanca. Do you have any new plans re another visit? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi Jonur. I tried to send you an email but it appears that your email is not enabled. Anyway, as you have participated in the discussions re Jajouka/Joujouka related articles, i thought you may be interested in reading the following email i've just sent to all concerned parties. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi [sic] X. Well, after the involvment of a few new editors and the status quo re wikipedia articles, i decided to move forward and sort out the problems once and for all. I'll be sending messages to every user concerned via their talk pages w/ 24h. I'll be citing the policies and guidelines related to the issues and ask everybody to work together to sort everthing out. I will also ask everyone to divulge any sockpuppet account which may have been used in order to stop that behaviour and reach transparency. I'll not be hesitant to carry a CheckUser option if necessary in case no one wants to tell us about their socks. Divulguing socks would not lead to any punitive action from any admin as it is my promise and believe it would be the same promise Mel Etitis would give. The goal will be to stop that behaviour. I am not accusing anyone of using socks but that should apply to all. Pls note that a copy of this email is being sent to all involved parties who are (in alphabetical order):

  • Abelelkrim
  • BKLisenbee
  • Emerman
  • Frankrynne
  • Theoldanarchist
  • Tuathal
  • and admin Mel Etitis
Regards

[edit] An informal mediation process

Hi Jonur. Please have a look at User:FayssalF/JK. Your participation would be highly appreciated. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)