User talk:IronDuke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for stopping by. If you want my attention on something, please:


  • Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
  • Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
  • Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. I may move your/our comments to the relevant talk page.
  • Do not make personal attacks unless they are funny.


That was the year that was

Contents

[edit] Don't think the anon ip was me

But thanks for the warning! I try to follow rules. --Blue Tie 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Oops! Yes it was me, but I don't think it violates 3rr because one of the edits was me, "reverting" myself I think. --Blue Tie 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Two of those were not Reverts. They were just edits. I do not think there is a violation. If you think that there is, I have no problem with you reporting it. If I violated the rule, I need to know it. But right now, I do not think I did. --Blue Tie 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from anon IP

I have deleted the picture showing Hazrat Bilal r.a. as it is against our religion i.e. Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.5.143.194 (talk)

Thanks so much for responding. While I sympathize with your unhappiness with the picture, Wikipedia is not censored. That is, we don't leave images out just because they may be offensive. See WP:NOT. Also, you might want to consider getting an account here -- people are almost always taken more seriouslywhen the do. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ .
But speaking only as someone who's curious, why is it against your religion? IronDuke 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

61.5.143.194 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Taking/Drawing pictures of People or Animals (anything which can move) is prohibited in Islam. Some people differ in opinion and says that only Drawing is prohibited ( Almost 99% muslims agree with it). But they all agree that "sketches /pictures showing either any Prophet specially Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. or his companion is against Islam". The reaction on creature printed in europan media was not due to that they showed him as terrorist but against that they showed him, becuase showing him was the real issue and other things matter second.61.5.143.194 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for leting me know. While I understand your frustration, Wikipedia is not censored. That is, we don't leave images or text out of article, even though they are sometimes hurtful to a lot of people. You could try to change this policy, but it would be an uphill struggle, I think. Do you have any questions/concerns/complaints about this or another matter I could help you with? IronDuke 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My pleasure

A pleasure. Just the wikignome in me image:smile.gif -- Avi 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] making spellng mastikes

Eye no whot ewe meen. ;) image:smile.png -- Avi 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jokes at the expense of other editors are personal attacks. Arniep 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not when they are good natured. Regardless, I humbly crave your pardon, Iron, if I have in any way insulted you. The smiley should have been a giveaway, but I believe Arnie is perturbed with me, and would like to make my life difficult, so let it be. If it gives him a small sense of satisfaction, so be it image:smile.gif. In the future, do I have your express permission to attempt to inject some good-natured humor? -- Avi 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, the joke was not at my expense. It was a reaction to the subject line of this edit I made: [1]. Secondly, as per my last point in my talk page welcome above, personal attacks are allowed on my talk page, at my discretion, as long as they are funny. I'm quite serious about this. Third, I enjoyed seeing it, and wish to keep it on my talk page which brings me to: fourth, I would caution you, Arniep, that your actions could be seen as baiting Avi. I see that you two are having a disagreement. Lowering the temperature, rather than looking for ways to raise it, will help you both. IronDuke 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mucking alert on William Tecumseh Sherman

Be aware. BusterD 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the edits. What concerns you? IronDuke 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for asking a favor without introduction. I noticed that you were a recent editor to either the Sherman or ACW main page. I thought I'd made my concerns clear on edit summary and talk (if not I likely did an equally poor job of communicating my intention to the editor with which I was reverting work). I saw a large set of changes of an unfinished quality to a Featured Article; I had been forced to use my 3 max reverts to defend the space. I was searching for allies, if any were out there. Thanks for observing. BusterD 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not personal comments

it is not personal comment, but the dispute explained by involved parties. --Aminz 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

neutrality = NPOV = no POV = all POVs = POV of you + POV of Itaqallah --Aminz 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be neutral. As a party involved in the dispute, you may also want to post something on the RfC page.--Aminz 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretations of the policies. If you feel I am poisining the well, feel free to report me to an admin. --Aminz 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

independent of what we think, i wanted to thank you for your respectful comments. --Aminz 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

... but neutral elaboration of specific debate contents does not constitute as a violation of point 4, in fact it helps people new to the dispute. no position of either disputing party is being forwarded. ITAQALLAH 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i am sorry that you feel my reflection of the talk page discussion is not neutral. could you please explain exactly where, so i can make the necessary changes? i think it is important to conduct an RfC, even if responses may not be voluminous, when i feel that you are not willing to respect the fact that there is a legitimate dispute- where it would be much better in the interests of dispute resolution to discuss on the talk page without continually adding further objectionable material. ITAQALLAH 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"Oh, just noticed I’m wrong. Improper debate on that page has already occurred – with you and Itaqallah being the culprits." - i don't believe i have been involved in any sort of debate on that page. ITAQALLAH 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazed

IronDuke, I am amazed regarding your views. On one hand, your usage of a particular class of sources which are by no means encyclopedic (See [2] ) given that there are far many (easy to find!) much less disputed academic sources, speaks to me. On the other hand, aside from that, you do not seem to be trying to impose your point of view to the article. --Aminz 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeons and Dragons

Is there a discussion of it somewhere? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

D&D itself is eminently notable. Is there a particular cruft-like example you can point to? -- Avi 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Stuff like this and this. IronDuke 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that trying to get the entire Monster Manual III into wiki would be cruft like. I thought you meant the phenomenon itself, sorry. -- Avi 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
NP. Cruft-like, and slow-motion copyvio as well, perhaps. BTW, thanks for reverting PA. IronDuke 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I've given up on trying to get the cruft out of Wikipedia; that way lies madness... Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of afraid that was the general feeling. It sort of ties in to this feeling I have that people aren't contributing in areas like RfC and AfD, etc., where arrantly silly things can be slapped down, thus they perdure. I have a sort of solution for it, but I'm afraid no one will like it. Echoing sigh... IronDuke 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too board

You suggested "...that his use of that account be restricted to pages he has not edited before..." Since HotR has sometime like 15K of edits it is too broad to restrict him from any page he has edited before since one usually edits in one's area of expertise. Though a more specific ban regarding at least the central controversial pages Allegations of Israeli apartheid and New anti-Semitism would be fair as well as any other pages that were key to the problems that I am unaware of. The other suggestions of yours are logical in my opinion but I am unsure what to do if he is editing an article and then an editor he has had problems with comes and starts to edit that article? Also, the ban should be reviewed after a period of time, like a year, where restrictions can be lightened somewhat if all is well, and if that works in another year they can be lightened further -- something progressive. --Deodar 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. On a minor note, probably it's best to keep this kind of discussion centralized. Happy to hear from you, but better on the relevant discussion thread. As to your points, I don't think we need to bend over backwards to accommodate a disruptive editor, really I don't. Everyone's time is too valuable. But given that we are, I'd hope Homey would be grateful to be given a second chance (perhaps more like 10th chance). As long as we're on the discussion, I would urge you to reconsider recapitulating the argument that there is something nefarious about the POV of the editors who want to see something done about Homey. It is only natural that Homey would target people he opposes, and that those people would protest. He's not targeted you with a sock, has he? See what I'm saying? IronDuke 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gregory AfD

Found 8 reviews of her work and added to the article. Regards. Edison 04:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks. IronDuke 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ian Baruma

I reviewed his info and have some comments, can you take a look at the discussion: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for letting me know

... and for being great. Image:wiki-thanks.png Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dare you to block me, I don't really care

It would be an honor to be blocked for attempting to put in factual evidence and have an admin block me simply because he wants to lie on a certain topic. Your threats don't bother me, go ahead block me. You started the personal attacks by calling me a "sock", so why don't you block yourself? Haramzadi 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you were a sock, only that it was likely. And you still haven't answered my question: are you editing/have you edited with other accounts, and if so, what were they? IronDuke 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You implied I was a sock. And I didn't see your question; No, I haven't edited with other accounts, why? What is the nature of this question?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haramzadi (talkcontribs) .
The nature of this question is that you're tossing around terms Wikipedians generally only learn after being here a while, and injecting yourself immediately into a controversial debate, a hallmark of sockpuppets. If you really are new, then I invite you to familiarize yourself with our policies. I'm going to WP:Assume good faith and leave a welcome message on your talk page. IronDuke 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete comments from your talk page??

Like this?? If you could explain the original question I would appreciate it. thanks. --68.9.116.87 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have a talk page? It's here. You might want to read it. IronDuke 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Man do I feel like an idiot, i didn't even know that existed, thanks, i am new as you can tell.--68.9.116.87 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. No need to feel like an idiot, we were all new once. When you see the message below as you click through articles, you'll know you have new messages, and can just click on the banner to go to your talk page. Also, as your talk page has been pointed out to you, you might want to think about replying to people who contact you on it.

IronDuke 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kriss Donald

I note your previous contributions to the above page. Discussions are ongoing regarding the relevance of some of the page's contents, and appear to have reached a stalemate: I would appreciate your input. Please see the talk page Best, FrFintonStack 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)