While I'm sure your revert was made in good faith, I think it would have been better if you could have included an explanation as to why you reverted my own good faith edits. I don't see any comments by you on the talk page or references to other people's comments. In the future, if you revert good faith edits, I request that you provide an explanation. Thank you. Organ123 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the Timeline? I thought I made it clear in the edit summary -the events I removed were WP:OR. <<-armon->> 00:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the timeline -- I am talking about my edits in the Overview section, the ones before the edits with the timeline, which I believe you also reverted. Was this done by accident? Or are you saying my edits were WP:OR? Thanks ... Organ123 01:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, well the link you replaced was to a blog, which is not a WP:RS. <<-armon->> 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not sure if the source was technically a blog, but I'll agree if you don't think it was reputable or reliable. In that case, can you restore the wording, without the source? The wording was a compromise between eliminating the section outright and leaving it exactly as-is. Perhaps a "citation needed" tag would be better than deleting the wording outright. There are other sources I could add instead. Organ123 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there was a perfectly good source for Duke's statements in the version I reverted to, and there isn't any need to preface them with the phrase "Critics of the analogy". <<-armon->> 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Organ123 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your participation in an edit war on Juan Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have proposed that you and Commodore Sloat be placed on community revert probation. Please see Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Cole. John254 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Armon,

You are currently in violation of the three-revert rule. Please self-revert your last edit, or I will be forced to report you. CJCurrie 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I miscounted and thought it was a day ago. Thanks for letting me know. <<-armon->> 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The document is one of the few "anti-terror" manuals to be released in Canada, and received attention (and controversy) within credible newspaper sources. I'm not sure how you can describe it as "non-notable". CJCurrie 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Are you still interested in moving forward with the mediation? If not I'll close the case. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You have already made 3 edits at Palestinian people deleting the same sourced paragraph. If you delete this paragraph again, you will violate 3RR. Tiamut 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada. Please, you are invited to join in the discussion. GofG _|^|_| Talk 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked on the MEMRI talk page but you typically ignored me, choosing instead to simply delete my text. Do you agree to go to Mediation Cabal re: MEMRI page? Thank you, Jgui 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may disagree on other matters, but thank you for your reversion and report of the persistent Runtshit vandal. RolandR 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Easy consensus on that one ;) <<-armon->> 10:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Anti-Zionism after many previous 3RR blocks for a period of 1 week. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Selket ^Talk 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I clicked the wrong link. My sincere apologies. --Selket ^Talk 22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but the autoblock is still on- it that the right template? <<-armon->> 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be cleared now. Try editing again. --Selket ^Talk 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no joy -it's Autoblock ID: 512073 <<-armon->> 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hold on, I'm contacting some people. --Selket ^Talk 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try now. --Selket ^Talk 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just so you know, I've moved your comment on my RfA to the support section since it appears you were kidding. Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]