User talk:DocEss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1

Contents 1 Mediation 2 Plea 3 The Divine Comedy 4 Hi 5 Picture 6 Archive 7 Ingrown Nail 8 Archiving 9 User:page 10 Muhammad 11 Vandal 12 Civility 13 Vandals 14 Please refer to your fellow editors in neutral terms 15 RfC 16 Friends 17 Please clarify 18 Civility at mediation 19 PETA 20 Dear friend 21 Looking for trouble? 22 Criticism of the Quran

[edit] Mediation

Thank you for your agreement to mediation. Would it be OK with you if I put in a request for mediation with you and I as parties? I hope others will join later, but I would like to get the process in motion. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya ya. Let us get on it.DocEss 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I will write something up, and I will let you review it before I submit the request. It will be a few hours, as I have other business I must take care of first. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Boston: I'm very cross at you! This dispute resolution you requested ---with my name on it--- is not what you represented. This dispute resolution process should focus on any and all images of Muhowmud, not just the 'Maome' image you mentioned in your request. I suggest (demand!) that you edit the request to include the real issue here: the real issue is that some of us think images of Mohowmud should be included in the Article and others think no imges should be allowed. Before I accuse you of engaging in subterfuge or clever, sly manipulativeness, please respond to this grievous afront to our intelligence and good faith.DocEss 16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not include "any and all" images because I don't have a dispute with you about any and all images, but a dispute with you regarding a particular image. --BostonMA ^talk 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no dispute with you in particular nor about any image in particular. In fact, I never even looked at that image you mention! The point here is to decide whether or not we are going to include images of Mohammud in the Mowhamed Article. Your micro-view of one little image is a waste of everyone's time. Let us settle this macro issue. Capiche?DocEss 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has been about the Maome image. If you think it is a waste of time to discuss it, then by all means, avoid participating in the discussion. (However, please do not complain about the outcome, nor engage in reverts in contravention to the outcome.) If you are happy to let the matter drop, I will be happy to remove your name from the mediation list. I only included it because you stated your willingness to participate. If you have reconsidered, that is your right. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting that you say you have never seen the image since it has been the subject of edit wars on Muhammad for some time, and in this comment you suggest we look at this web site, in which the image in question is the first image on the page. If it is true that you have not seen the image, than I would appreciate it if you didn't waste our time discussing an image for which you have self-confessed ignorance. --BostonMA ^talk 18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we planning to have one of these administrative interventions for every image that get added? You know that will happen - every time someone adds an image, there will be ample yapping on the talk page, reverts upon reverts and then eventually a request for some adjudication. Get real and get the thing done correctly. I demand to participate in THAT kind of discussion - piece-meal is a waste of time at best and diversionary at worst. And by the way - you said you'd let me reveiew the request before sending it, did you not?DocEss 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did say I would let you review the request. However, when I went to the request page, I realized that they only wanted a brief description. I apologize that I that I took what I thought to be appropriate action without running it by you first. With regard to your idea of solving "everything", why don't you write up a description of what you believe the issues are that require consensus. I'm sure that the mediator, should we get one, will wish to hear your point of view, and not merely my own. --BostonMA ^talk 18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All right - I will do that. But a macro-approach is the only right thing to do, I am convinced. Think for a day about it, Boston, and I'm sure you'll agree. Let's get er all settled once and for all. Until tomarrow,....DocEss 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plea

You should spend more time on Islam articles and less time pestering atheists like Ttiotsw(though I do it too). That's not the way to go about it anyway. If there is no afterlife, then nothing matters because when you're dead, you're dead. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to consider things like love and family important; it is an objective fact that those things make us feel good. Arrow740 18:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All he had to do was play along for ten seconds and it would have been over weeks ago. It was a simple little riddle that makes one think, that's all. Relax, max.DocEss 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Divine Comedy

Please take a look at my recent suggestions at Talk:The Divine Comedy. If you have any disagreements with what I've said, I'm sure they can be hashed out there. The material you're adding is relevant to the article, but in its current form not relevant to the section to which you're adding it. I have explained on the talk page how you could give the Inferno passage more prominence in this section (you do realize that it's already mentioned twice in the article, both in the "Islamic Philosophy" section as "ironic" and in the Inferno summary?) in a way that one would expect to meet with the acceptance of a lot of editors. Wareh 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not write it. I just put it back where it was. Perhaps you and I can put our heads together and improve it along the lines you sugest.DocEss 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)P.S. I especially like the picture.

Ok. There may be a misunderstanding. I think that you're not noticing that, after it was removed from the tail end of the section, it was reincorporated in the middle of the section:

This was particularly ironic, in light of the fact that in Canto XXVIII of the Inferno Dante consigned the Islamic supreme prophet Muhammad to the eighth circle of hell, as a "seminator di scandalo e di scisma" - a "sower of scandal and schism" - in line with then-current Catholic dogma regarding Islam, as evidenced by the title of the first Latin translation of the Qu'ran: Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete")

While I think the scholarly quality of this could be improved along the lines I've suggested, I think that, for now, this is a better provisional text than any other we have in the existing article history. So, pending improvement, surely it makes sense to keep the better out of the two redundant statements of fact?

Re-add the image if you want. My only objection is that the layout looks lousy on my browser setup. (It displays with the following section.) Perhaps place the image in smaller format higher up (near the text I've quoted)? Wareh 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh...my browser too. Will do. [Frnakjly I ain't noe gud at addun piktchers.]DocEss 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be wasting so many words in two places... but when you fix the picture, please leave out the article text, and check a copy of the Inferno so that the image is placed by the right section of the Inferno summary. Ok, that's all, I'll cork my verbosity now, I swear! Wareh 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

tee hee! I knew we'd crack this nut open. Cool.DocEss 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi there; I really would like to meet you sometime, although as I am in the UK and you are, I think, in the USA it's not going to happen. You say everything that I would like to say - although you never take my advice. And fair enough, why should you? Your system works for you. But I do miss Nemo on your Userpage.--Anthony.bradbury 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I dearly miss my Nemo. They took him from me because I went tooooo far - I should have listened to your advice. I do now, though; I'm thuper nice, even to stubborn fools who can't see straight. They take me all wrong --- I'm just fiesty is all, and it hurts them that I'm right.DocEss 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Hi, that is A very humorous picture you uploaded. Could you explain to me how you made it? Thanks. I won't beat around the bush. You have have been caught in the past adding the work of others to Wikipedia and claiming it as your own. --BostonMA ^talk 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It is funny. You should laugh. I laughed. Most people laughed. As for the rest of your commentary, it is not funny.DocEss 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no, the rest of my commentary was not funny. It was not intended to be funny. Claiming someone else's work as your own is not funny in this context. So I will ask you again, how did you create the image which you claimed to have created? --BostonMA ^talk 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall just create the one reply and leave it here. Image is a copy vio - [1] - examples here and here. DocEss - it is pretty straight forward - Stop uploading works of other people claiming you created them when you didn't. Your userpage is a base for yourself and others related to wikipedia activities - it is not a personal webpage, and not a notice board to upload your "email funnies" to. Generally everyone is pretty relaxed about poeple's userpages - that relaxation, for me, heavily tightens when people start breaking the rules of this place by uploading copyvio images. Please stop - either put something useful on the page, or find some free content - This passed me by on my FlickrLickr travels, it will be uploaded to the commons at some point fairly soon, but it is cc-by and anyone can uploaded it if they wish. There was a whole category of funnies on the commons at one point, but I think it has dissapeared in the re-cat process. These Two licences are commons compatible, and I don't doubt there are free funny pictures in there if you really want to display that on your userpage. SFC9394 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Thank you. I think I know how to do it and will try now. I will return to you if disaster strikes!--Anthony.bradbury 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't know how to do it! Walkies?--Anthony.bradbury 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrown Nail

Thanks for asking. Please let me first apologize for not answering promptly, I haven't logged on for some time. Yes, I have an ingrown nail on my big toe of my right foot. It began I think in April, about 3 months ago I went to the doctor because repeated bathroom surgery only provided relief for a few days and I was becoming concerned because it was discharging pus and was swollen even though it did not hurt much. Also I was on summer break from the university and I wanted to solve this before the beginning of the semester in August, since I walk a lot over here. The doctor drained my toe and proceded to clean it with alcohol then she injected lidocaine waited a few minutes for the effect and then got to work. She trimmed the side of my nail (right side) and removed some nail and debris, I did not feel any pain though I was bleeding and the bleeding certainly did not help because it interfered. Even though she trimmed the side of the nail, I felt that she did not go deep enought and that some nail fragments were still embedded on the flesh. She cleaned my toe again before covering it with bandages, she told me to remove the bandages after a few hours and advised me to wear open shoes for the next 7 days. She also prescribed me an antibiotic and painkillers. I did what she told me to the letter and I did see significant improvement but only to an extent because the swelling did not go down entirely. I began cheking my toe again to see if some nail was again embedded and I found some and either I cut it or I break it off with a nail filer, this I have done several times. Recently I began to notice a bit of swelling on the other side of the nail and as expected the nail was beginning to grow into the flesh on the other side, I tried to trim it with some degree of success, it is not discharging pus or blood but it is a bit swollen without pain. I am not sure what to expect, whether the nail with grow out and correct itself or if the condition will deteriorate. I have gone back to wearing open shoes and I clean my toe every night with alcohol, for the moment it is a bit swollen (on both sides) but it does not hurt or anything. My question about the statement was about people needing to feel pain and pressure, in this regard I during the time I've been afflicted with this I was almost compulsively "working" on the nail, trying to lift it and find the embedded shard, etc. I was surprised by the statement because I thought it was just me behaving compulsively and I wanted to know the what and why's out of curiosity. Thank You very much for asking and being concerned. If you have any suggestions about this (or anything else) please do tell me. I can be reached over here (I'll check this account frequently) and my email is rebel.crusader@gmail.com or you can add me to MSN messenger with centerfrancisco@hotmail.com. Thanks again!!!

Francisco Rebel.crusader 10:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh you poor man. Suffering will not make you stronger, so stop messing with it, go to the podiatrist and do what he says. From what you said, it is almost inevitable that the other side of the nail will ingrow too - you must avoid that! Actually, the description above sounds eerily reminiscent of my brother's problem; he actually twice had temporary wedge resections (which you had, I see) and they inevitably failed. Bro's trouble was finally, happily, permanently and professionally solved after fourteen months (or some intolerable number) by having a partial permanent avulsion on both sides of his big toe. In other words, the nail was trimmed all the way back to the base and phenol was applied to kill the matrix so that it can never grow there again. I know it sounds all scary - nobody wants pieces removed - but the anxiety over a twenty-minute surgical procedure is nothing compared to the anxiety you must be prepared to face by trying to tough it out. And there won't be any permanent anxiety over the functionality or appearence: it's only a millimeter or so - you won't look like a freak and it will never ingrow again. It is the solution and I'll wager that's what the pody says to do. Good luck, man - I beg you, please stop the suffering, stop the bathroom surgery (what if your whole foot gets infected?!) and stop worrying - it's easily solved.DocEss 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I told him that, albeit in fewer words. You describe my technique.--Anthony.bradbury 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I got it sorted. I borrowed (more or less) your archive graphic, which rather appealed to me. p.s. looking at the communication above, do you make house calls?--Anthony.bradbury 21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:page

Although I really loved the Nemo page, in which I suspect we may be a minority of two, I cannot help liking, gender notwithstanding, your new userpage, which absolutely reflects the vast mass of my clinical experience. Please answer on my talk page - having been totally archived it looks naked and lost.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Please if it does not violate your freedom of speech then it is better to write 'Muhammad' or other more comonly used spelling. Mistakes are okay but one should not do that otherwise. It is a polite request. --- ابراهيم 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said: I've seen so many spellings that they're all 'common' to me. IAccordingly, I will continue to spell it various ways chosen randomly because I refuse to devote any effort to it.DocEss 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civil which is official policy. Taunting is classified as one of the more serious breaches of civility. While an occasional misspelling might have been a mistake, it is no longer possible to assume that your misspellings of the name Muhammad are errors made in good faith. Rather, your misspellings hav the appearance of taunts, and I will interpret them as such. --BostonMA ^talk 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh stop it. There is no one accepted way of spelling. How do you spell Moscow? How do you spell Munich? How do you spell Pyong-Yang? There are all kinds of spellings.DocEss 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the ways you (mis)spell Muhammad have nothing to do with accepted transliterations. --BostonMA ^talk 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Thank you. I have reverted my userpage. He doesn't seem happy, does he? I think the difference is that you just wind people up in discussion, while I go out and deliberately target vandals.--Anthony.bradbury 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that is by no means the worst that I've had thrown at me. For entertainment, spend a few minutes looking through the previous vandalisms that have come my way. After all these years I am professionally hardened, as I assume you are. I tend to feel the urge, restrained so far, to suggest psychotherapy to them. Do you think they would welcome the suggestion?--Anthony.bradbury 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked indefinitely. Sometimes I feel that Wiki use me to drive thes people out of the woodwork into the open air where they can be eliminated. And if it works for wiki it works for me; but it's hard work sometimes.--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Vandals are just overly-passionate fools plagued by overpowering insecurities.DocEss 16:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Greetings DocEss, I'm going to politely warn you against such demonstrations of incivility. Kindly refrain from comparing an editor's Arabic signature to the result of a sneeze of yours. Doing so just fosters ill will and sets Wikipedia up to be a battleground. (→Netscott) 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there no space for levity? Good gracious! Give me a break. I can't read it and I'm not alone. I only read English. I can decipher the odd non-English letter. I can't read squiggles.DocEss 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no space for levity given your previous behavior. You would be ill advised to making such comments in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Who gets to use levity?DocEss 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is your choice to make an effort to understand. But note that the type of behavior that resulted in several blocks for incivility, will only result in more blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Who gets to use levity?DocEss 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Johnson, that celebrated author, once wrote about two brothers, whose surname escapes me. One was a very serious-minded fellow and became a senior bishop; one was frivolous and was passed over for everything. Johnson reports the frivolous brother as saying "I have been held down by my levity, while my brother has risen because of his gravity". Just thought you'd like to know.--Anthony.bradbury 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Profound and enlightening. Despite the wisdom imparted by that parable, I shall continue for now to lighten these proceedings in Wiki until the over-sensitive, reactionary, tantrum-prone whiners stop cryin and learn to have a giggle and get over there own self importance(s?), etcetera.DocEss 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no - Looks like all Greek letters are out too as they are not English. DocEss - can you please advise what is your new letter for PI seeing that π is not an English symbol. I pity the person who uses that in their signature. Ttiotsw 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Titisow--- that argument is nonsense. All Greek letters are 'out' insofar as they are used to spell words which I can't read. But Greek letters, like pi, are part of of the English lexicon insofar as they are used in specific contexts, like pi in math. Spelling out some sentence or a person's name using Greek letters doesn't help the vast majority of readers in Wiki's English pages. Be sensible, please.DocEss 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke DocEss. I think someone told me to lighten up so I've taken that on board. I hate to think what would happen if you were Italian and someone used 'j','k','w', 'x' or 'y' in their name on the Italian Wikipedia pages - yukky foreign letters !. One moment..... I think I hear the unicode pixies singing hi ho, 2-bites, hi ho, 2-bites, off to work we go, 2-bites... Ttiotsw 02:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get it. I guess athiest humour lacks a certain joviality, but I'm glad you're all lightened up.DocEss 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

I have now had my userpage vandalised 30 times, and my usertalk page twice. I am going to be out of the countrey for about a week, and have asked two admin friends to keep an eye on my pages. Could I ask you, who I am also starting to think of as a friend, to keep an eye on my user and talk pages and revert vandalism if it occurs? I would be most grateful. Kiss.--Anthony.bradbury 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

ya I shall check out your page for you periodically. Just don't send me any more kisses, misses.DocEss 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please refer to your fellow editors in neutral terms

Please do not refer to your fellow editors as you did in this edit. --BostonMA ^talk 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: don't ever again edit anything I have written in a talk page and I'll do as you suggest.DocEss 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no deal. Civility is a requirement for editting Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing un-civil. It is agaisnt policy to edit talk page comments. Don't force me to be a whining little snitch, which I am loathe to do.DocEss 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not against policy in these cases. See Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Which cases? Also, I read that link. Accordingly, his editing of my talk page commentary is certainly against policy and is not justified by the clause you qouted becuse it is "non-official policy." Notwithstanding, I still don't know what Boston or you consider a personal attack in the relevant comment. I deduce you're referring to my use of the word Islammi?DocEss 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you carefully re-read WP:NPA, that says that a personal attack is Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. I attacked no one.DocEss 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked several times for violating WP:NPA and for conducting discussions in a non-civil manner. Listen to fellow editors about what they are telling you about your talk-page behavioe. Don't do it again, unless you do not care about your editing privileges that much.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know: Where in the name of God's green Earth do you think there's an insult? I followed the link and despite my best efforts I cannot find any evidence of a personal attack. Are you suggesting, users BostonMA and Jossi, that we not refer to any group of individuals because this violates WP:NPA? I think not. I think (given the tone of this talk page) that this is an effort by the pair of you to harass a member who doesn't agree with you. Very disappointing.GreatMizuti 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Mitz. I feel so picked on. Oversensitivity is the new earmark of the oncoming clash of civilisations, I think. Ya know, there's even a user who goes by the name Islami! Personal attack? Yaaaaah.DocEss 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Would you please comment on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Request_for_Comment

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, done. I weighed in to that wordy discussion that I assume will go nowhere.DocEss 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends

I am now back in the land of the living. What's wrong with a friendly kiss?--Anthony.bradbury 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're five-nine, 24-36-24, naturally blonde collars and cuffs, easily lured by charm and wit, and FEMALE, I don't want any kisses, missus.DocEss 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to qualify on every single one of those parameters!--Anthony.bradbury 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS on re-reading, did you REALLY mean 24-36-24?--Anthony.bradbury 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify

Could you please state clearly what in my comment you believe should be changed. --BostonMA ^talk 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You know very well: it is your rejoinder to my Statement in the Mohammud-mediation-dealy. I wrote: "...to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine)." You responded (in revised terms after you were asked to do so, but the meaning is the same): "I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission."

Then I wrote to you: "Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair." Now you've moved this to my talk page (and I can guess the reason) challenging me to summarise all this, all this which is readily apparent; ok I did. Now respond please.

Let me get this clear. You would like me to remove the statement that reads:

I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission.

Is that correct? Do you disagree with this statement? --BostonMA ^talk 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your obfuscation of the real issue is disengenuous; I'm rapidly losing respect for you. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to scornfully snub vandalism, which is done instantly, agressively, mercilessly? DocEss 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My statement isn't about scornfully snubbing vandalism, it is about scornfully snubbing the sensitivities of others. I presume that most readers of Wikipedia are not vandals. --BostonMA ^talk 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for ya: I never said I wish to scornfully snub anyone's sensitivities. Should I spell it out in crayon?DocEss 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as far as I am aware, that you never stated that you wish to scornfully snub anyone's sensitives. What would you like me to do about that? --BostonMA ^talk 18:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course I never did. So why do you keep writing about "scorning others's sensitivities" when such a thing was never suggested?DocEss 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about "scorning others' sensitivities", because I don't believe it is part of Wikipeidia's mission to scorn the sensitivities of others. Some comments and edits by some editors seem to me to be intended to provoke reactions, and at times to scorn the sensitivites of others. I think that is not what Wikipedia is all about. --BostonMA ^talk 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well so what? You're stating the obvious. Actually, you're just attempting to circumvent the need to admit a mistake. I never claimed we should scorn other's sensitivities; I claimed we should scorn attampts at religious-based censorship; you jumped all over that instantly and ran with it, and you did it without thinking.DocEss 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I misquoted you by changing the text of my comment. However, if you would like, I will acknowledge it again. Is there anything else? --BostonMA ^talk 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is sufficient. Thank you.DocEss 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc, pardon me if this doesn't help, but I have to say something. I'm on the same side as you. All I was asking was for you to sign above, again, to alay Boston's fears, no matter how silly you think they are. If Boston is being silly in his way of going about things, fine; but antagonizing him is only going to make the mediation fail. To be blunt, I'm not sure that you're not disrupting the process in exactly the same way you accuse him of doing. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility at mediation

DocEss, some of your comments given in a demanding tone such as Be a man are coming very close to incivility. While I do not think you have made a grevious violation of the civility policy, I can see this escalating in the future.

I agree it is frustrating to have the mediation held back by disagreement, but right now civility is more important than normal. Please avoid using demanding tones during mediation, as it is not productive.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, so please do not take offense. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was not implying he was not a man; I was advising him to be a man. In any event, I will conduct my affairs in the manner you suggest. And by the way, I'm offended by almost nothing.DocEss 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

I want to apologise about my earlier, intendedly friendly, comment. I had no wish to offend you.

I have just, admittedly belatedly, looked at the PETA page, and found to my vast surprise that you did not figure on the talk page. As someone who agrees with me that animals have no rights except those granted them by law, I was sure that you would be there. But you are not. Surely you have not grown tired of courting controversy? If you do have a go, I will support you.--Anthony.bradbury 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I found their intracability frustrating to the point that we irritated the heck out of each other and I get in trouble because half of those whiny little bunny-huggers have more power than me and I get banned. I have decided to let others soften up the radicals for a while before I return with renewed vigour. I'll have a go, alright, but only after I eat enough furry and cute little critters to foam up my blood enough.DocEss 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I love your style. Would you like me to start winding them up now, or shall I wait a bit?--Anthony.bradbury 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have at it. You could start by showing them that any belief system that disallows any and all uses of animals is by definition a radical one. When someone starts to argue about the meaning of a word I look it up in the dictionary and quote same. Ga'head, look up radical and let em read it. They are radicals, pure and simple, and their position is bollocks.DocEss 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that our ethical and logical position is the same (i.e. I'm on your side - somebody has to be) and given that I have been making these points to a generally non-responsive, if not comatose, and certainly immovable audience for about forty years, I do know how to do it! If you can tell me, however, how to convince a monomaniac self-righteous prick that he is wrong, then tell me now.

PS I ate bunny for dinner today.--Anthony.bradbury 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendly word, gentlemen. When you are talking about other editors, even on the relative 'safety' of your talk page, please use civil language. Suggesting you will purposely "wind up" other Wikipedians is poor form and is liable to lead to a blocking for disruptive editing should you end up in a conflict. Believe it or not, I hold similar philosophical views to you both (and go one further, not only do I personally eat and wear animals, but I experiment on them too). However, if you want to make a change, you have to work within the system. This conversation will not help your cause. Rockpocket 04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Many friendly warnings have been given.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear friend

Dear friend DocEss my signature says Ibrahim in arbic, you can also call me ALM or ALM_scientist or Ibrahim. If I change my signature for you then would your start spelling Muhammad as "Muhammad". If you will then I will change my signature to English. Deal?? I am not trying to infulence anyone. I just wanted to state him my position as I was confused after reading some comments of him on the mediation page that if he is really sure that what is my position. I will from now on will try to post only in Muhammad picture mediation page. Happy ?  :) --- ابراهيم 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an English language website, so please spell things in English. Secondly, I spell Mohammud like I was taught my whole life and it is a perfectly acceptable spelling. So, since your baragiaing position is so weak that you have nothing of value to offer, no deal. Third, if you're not trying to influence anyone, why are you here?DocEss 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was removing my comments but my mistake also remove your comment. Puting them here. --- ابراهيم 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I told you that I wanted to clear him my position, friend. --- ابراهيم 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for trouble?

You have been warned several times already. Unless you want your editing privileges temporarily suspended., please address fellow editors with respect and civility, and not as you have done here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't read Arabic. This is an English language website. DocEss 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither can I. You could have, politely, ask the user to make his signature inEnglish as well as in Arabic, as I have donehere. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I concur with Jossi. As I'm certain Ibrahim is not signing his username in Arabic to antagonize you, I'm not sure why you are antagonizing him over it. I don't appreciate your kibitzing on my Talk page about comments other editors are leaving for me; frankly, it's just making my job harder. Since the direction I've chosen to guide the mediation has not immediately addressed the concerns of Ibrahim and some others, he felt the need to express that to me personally. I assure you that I remain unbiased and neutral, and that his concerns will be addressed along with everyone else's. Let's dispense with the meta-discussion and get back to solving the problem at hand, shall we? --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed them in English. No big deal. regards, --- ALM 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All is fine with the world again. N.B. I'm not antgonizing anyone - I can't read Arabic and he's not the only one who uses a non-English signature. Agguerriero: I have never doubted your objectivity and I have full confidence in you judicial abilities.DocEss 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's got a good point, if the point of a signature is to tell us which editor actually made the edit then it would be helpful if the people doing the reading could actually discern who is editing it. Moreover, I believe user Jossi's opening comment on the topic to be a threat, given the way of this place I'm sure that's not allowed.GreatMizuti 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually making threats of block to prevent personal attack is very much allowed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I attacked no person.DocEss 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that you do not consider this to be a personal attack. It is borderline, probably closer to incivility than an outright personal attack, but it was more my intention to defend Jossi's warning than it was to draw more attention to you. To say it another way, I was not trying to pick on you, but defend Jossi from the GreatMizuti's statment the warning was not allowed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

This is a somewhat new article that we're having problems with. Help with it would be great. Check out the history to see what's going on. Arrow740 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, I know that you almost never take my advice. Please be careful here.--Anthony.bradbury 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That was not meant to mean that you should become totally inert: or, I hope you enjoyed your holiday.--Anthony.bradbury 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)