User talk:Netscott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Welcome to the garden.
The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian
Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.

Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04 • Archive-05 • Archive-06 • Archive-07

[edit] 3rr Islam and slavery

My actions weren't reversions rather at each stage recaptioning or re-citing photos as suggested or demanded by you. Once I'd address those specified reasons for your NPOV-tag I detagged. On that page we have a policy that an NPOV tag will not sit unless it is backed up, fairly promptly, by POV complaint specifications on talk. Also, we take down the tag after the complaint has been considered and addressed and/or when the discussion has subsided.DavidYork71 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done editing on Islam and slavery for today

I'm done editing on the article David York but as I stipulated on your talk page the soapboxery you are engaging in villifying Islam is unacceptable. (→Netscott) 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. If you have problems with edits, be specific. You have not justified this rhetoric. "This article is farcical nonsense that in its current state is nothing but original research." That is false. There may be some OR involving pictures at present, but the text is all cited. I think you know that. Arrow740 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is one of the best-and-most-comprehensively-cited articles I've seen. It has had to be with all the past whining and warring about every little nuance introduced .. and God forbid that it may somehow bear a pic demonstrating what it means to be a slave under the scheme of Islamic law, past or present.DavidYork71 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. The article is so riddled with original research right now (particularly surrounding the images) that it is a veritable farce. (→Netscott) 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you what part of the text of the article you object to with regards to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arrow740 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
He just did that. The intro is a work in progress and needs a lot of work, I agree. Arrow740 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen you complain when it's Muslims doing the POV pushing. That notwithstanding, you are free to edit, remove, or tag OR. Arrow740 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

←What is the point of trying to correct an article that is severely out of accord with Wikipedia policy when I'm just reverted? I will not revert back and forth further over such nonsense but instead I'll try to bring the problem to the community's attention so that more eyes can have a look at the original research based soapboxing going on here. (→Netscott) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems with the pictures but I think you two have made progess today. Arrow740 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, Can you please check this out: [1]

Thanks very much --Aminz 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm through with this discussion for now... I've got to step away from this for a bit and possibly work on other things (like building an encyclopedia). No more reverting, no more attempts for now at trying to correct an article that everyone else save David York agrees is wrong. You're welcome to put a Wikilink to this talk there if you'd like however. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will. The reason I asked you to comment is that Arrow is claiming that you have said something contrary to what I have written after seeing my report (as far as I understand it): [2]
So, if you can comment on Arrow's comment, I would appreciate it. --Aminz 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I seriously have to step away from it. I agree that what Arrow740 wrote is a mischaracterization of the situation but I really need to just pull back from this a touch right now. These sorts of problems unfortunately take time to rectify when one is trying to co-edit relative to such biased and unencylopedic editing. (→Netscott) 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyways Scott. Have nice times. --Aminz 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, do you realize that all slaves taken from Africa were either captured or sold by Muslim slavers? So any picture of an African slave is relevant. Arrow740 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of citation are you looking for? Arrow740 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What do mean by exemplary? They are examples of slaves, enslaved or sold by Muslims. Slavery was given divine sanction. In an article about any religion and slavery, pictures slaves taken or sold by members of that religion would be topical. Arrow740 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and support your actions except for the photo with the citation linking it to the Arab slave trade, for the reasons I noted above. Would you accept reinstating that one? Arrow740 05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] amasci.com and Levitron

Hi Netscott! I'm suprised that you'd mistake amasci.com for a "personal blog."  :) It's intended of course to be a science education resource website. Paper publishing and website content both have the same issues: everything hinges on the credibility of the author. Inspect their credentials. If I'm misleading people using unreliable information, then I'm misleading a *very* large audience. (Of course this doesn't apply to the "weird science" section, which is intended to be raving crackpotism!)
But if this is about the "Hidden history" article, the above issues don't apply. The "Hidden history" article is a mirror copy of the original that was once on the Sherlocks' website. I've been following the Levitron controversy from the start. The author of that article is the Sherloks; one party in the Levitron controversy. The other party, William Hones, has no corresponding online information as far as I know.
The real issue here is balance versus attempted censorship. If WP is to include information about a controversy, to preserve balance both sides of the issues must be presented. On the WP Levitron entry this is impossible because parties with a very large personal interest keep deleting all information about the controversy and all links referencing it, while disengenuously citing OR, or bias, or unreliable source. Yet any discussion of the controversy needs to link to information about Hones side of the story, as well as the "Hidden history" article and the extensive evidence it presents. Trouble is, all other copies of that article have been removed from the www because Hones/Fascinations has made legal threats against hosting ISPs. Rather than countering their evidence and presenting his side of the story, Hones is apparently trying to silence his opponent. For example, there once was a copy of that article on a physicist's website at UCLA physics department, but Hones managed to force its removal. Maglev physicist Dr. Martin Simon can tell you that story. Owners of my own ISP take a very dim view of bullies who try to suppress information through hollow legal threats, so Hones' lawyer message to eskimo.com did not cause the removal of the remaining copy found on my site. Besides "hidden history," any discussion of the Levitron controversy needs to reference this 1999 newspaper article: http://www.roddriver.com/index_science.html, as well as this article by J. Chieffo, one of the two inventors of the first spin-stablized maglev toy. People keep adding these links to the article, yet both have been repeatedly removed. --Wjbeaty 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had my time eaten by moderating a fight and removing a subscriber. Now I'm back!  :)
like a personal blog you are the only one exercising editorial control over it, no? Exactly. But the issues are usually different for each article. The current version of the Sherlock's article is just a mirror copy I received from the Sherlocks, and I had no input on it. Earlier I hosted a copy of that original top page which I took directly from their website, but I didn't originally preserve any of the linked gifs/jpegs/etc. As for other material on my website... are you talking about my lunatic ravings or my perpetual motion and antigravity resources in the /weird/ section?  :) Or about the physics student projects? Or the curriculum material aimed at grade school science teachers, some of which was reviewed by an enormous group of university-level physics professors and some of which was added later without review? (And does the crazy content cancel out the serious?) Some of my articles are pointing out widespread flaws in long-respected sources. Why should anyone distrust a major reference book written by experts, and take my articles seriously? And one or two of my articles contain actual new ideas, so there is no possibility of adding references to any earlier source as is supposedly required.
On Wikipedia:Reliable sources There are good points, but I see some huge flaws: Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. Well, in my experience this is not true. One reason is that I intentionally resist putting my stuff in print. If people want it, they have to come to my website where they'll then find all my other stuff. That creates an astronomically large readership which paper books do not. No doubt a few other web authors do the same. Another reason it's not true is that people don't plagarise. If a web article is the original source for something, no 3rd party ever comes in and takes it for journal publication or whatever. They just reference it like any other article. On the other hand, if Wikipedia:Reliable sources is unclear, and they meant to say that, if the material was any good, then THE AUTHOR would have submitted the web articles to paper journal publishers... they're simply wrong and have a seriously web-hostile bias. I could turn this paper-centric thinking around and say that WP itself is obviously questionable, because if it was any good at all, Jimbo would be selling paper bound copies which were fact-checked by reputable people with verifiable names and credentials. (Or does the reasoning in Wikipedia:Reliable sources never apply to WP itself, but just to other author's websites?) More from WP:Reliable Sources: second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. Oh really? WP's existence demonstrates that self-publication on a high-traffic website can actually mean the opposite. Some of my articles are ancient and have been fact-checked via years of continuing controversy, by extremely hostile readers searching for flaws, and by expert readers noticing new issues, all sending in commentary resulting in changes or more frequently clarification and expansions. Such checking doesn't happen with articles in even prestigious journals. There's no proof though, so the trustworthyness of the people involved becomes critical. On the other hand, many of my articles were written in one go and never modified or commented upon. So it all depends on which article is under scrutiny, and this information is not in the articles.
What do you think about that idea? Well, the Levitron WP article contains major physics content in History copies, all of which were deleted by whoever and then re-written from scratch and then deleted, repeatedly. If I had the time, I'd be going back through all those censored versions and reusing the wasted labor that went into those physics sections. And about gyroscopic forces, they certainly do exist. It's only the radially-directed centrifugal and centripetal pseudo-forces perceived by accelerated observers which must be treated more carefully, but those don't apply here. --Wjbeaty 06:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: No guidelines

Hi Netscott, there's mention of situation where the TOC is displayed and how to avoid displaying it when you don't like it. The TOC should be displayed especially in long articles since it's very hard to find information you're looking for without it. TOC may be easily hidden in articles with two headings, see also and refs, because such short article doesn't need TOC that much but it's pointless to hide it in long articles. Thank you.--Pethr 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this template has some support especially by experienced users but I can't see how it can help casual visitor in getting information. If somebody is reading it from the top he will scroll a little or click hide if user comes from search engine looking for some information he will very likely read the intro or quickly skip to relevant section. If reader feels like he doesn't need TOC he can hide it it's as simple as clicking show when using your template. May be it doesn't look so good but it's extremely helpful piece of article. If you don't like TOC I recommend you going to your user prefs clicking misc tab and disabling TOC. You don't like TOC, imagine that next month somebody won't like infoboxes because they distract from reading of the text and in few more months users will have to click five times to see anything at all.--Pethr 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said I don't pretend that there isn't any reason at all to hide the TOC I just feel strongly that the negatives outweigh anything you've said, especially aesthetics. I'm thinking about nominating it for deletition to generate some discussion. Concern about blank space should not be given priority over as easy and quick accessibility of information as possible. If user don't like TOC he either disabled it in prefs already or clicks hide. IMO majority of users need TOC and have to click show for no good reason.--Pethr 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott, could I ask a favor?

I asked Risker as well... I've (with Gwen Gale!) done a lot of work on the article RegisterFly. would you mind going over it? I asked before, I don't want to be a pest and won't bother you again if you have other commitments (I don't want you to feel obliged/guilty or anything!). If you don't want to, no worries at all. From seeing you work on the Essjay article you seem to be a very good editor... The article has become much, much more stable and I think it actually has GA/possible FA legs eventually. I'd love to get more eyes on it. I put it up for Peer & Good Article review just now also. - Denny 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputedtag req. for input

Your participation in {{Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help- please. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. deleted

I don't understand why people have problems with humor articles, Jimbo even makes them. Anyway, somebody deleted it. No discussion, no "how about changing this or that", just a straight up delete on the basis that we were slamming a competitor, jeeez. It's always something. What is the proceedure to undelete Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.? Here is my reasoning:

1. If you delete that article, you must also delete this one: Wikipedia:Primogeniture, which was the basis of the B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. article. And also delete half of the other humor pages I know of.

2. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a wikipedia competitor, it is an evil organization.

3. The encyclopedia Britanica is spelled with only one letter "t", while B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a word at all, but an acronym consisting of several words.

4. The article was clearly marked as humor.

5. There is no Cabal.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice tool

The online link suggesting tool is really cool. --Aminz 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical

I suppose transcluding something would have been neater and more maintainable. Is there a way to assign a string to a variable and then use it again later on the page? Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes the transclusions make a lot of sense. It is a bit unfortunate that <ref>s don't currently work properly in transclusions. There's no real way to assign strings to variables. The closest is to utilize transclusions as they were on the page previously. Were you thinking of this for the warning language or some other aspect? (→Netscott) 20:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for the warnings. The only problem I see with transclusions is we don't get a good dated version. The existing version of the transclusion always appears as it is now, even in historical versions of the article. Of course that isn't a problem with html comments -- I just didn't think of doing it until I had already pasted it in. Variables would be handy, but it's probably just as well that we can't put arbitrary javascript on a page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering if you could help walk me through some processes

(Sorry for the long story, but the background leads up to what I want to learn how to do.) I made the mistake of hitting "random article" last evening and wound up on the Kim Kardashian page. The key focus of the article is her apparent appearance on a celebrity sex tape. (If only you knew how ironic it is that I would be editing an article about one of Paris Hilton's friends...) Well, I did my duty as a good Wikipedian, cleared out a dead reference link, made the language slightly more encyclopedic, cleared out the inappropriate categories, and most particularly removed the links to the website that is selling the video - no content, just sales pitch. I left a message on the talk page, explaining what I had done and reinforcing that the commercial links to vivid dot com were not appropriate.

Well. Since then, the commercial links have been added back by three anons and one registered user, and also removed by other editors. The guys adding them back in seem to be actively doing this for commercial reasons, based on their talk page histories. Based on quick whois.net checks, anons 24.210.240.196 and 61.78.56.133 seem to be open proxies out of Korea; 85.187.105.9 is out of Bulgaria, and I'd guess it's probably an open proxy too. Bigdaddyc 187 and user 85.187.105.9 seem to have come to an agreement on their talk pages as to which spam link to add; their discussions seem to also involve some sort of programming to automate the spam into the article. So there are a few things that need fixing here, none of which I have ever done before.

Could you help me figure out how to:

  • figure out if there are vivid dot com links in other articles so that I can
    • get vivid dot com onto the blacklist
  • properly report the suspected open proxies
  • alert someone about the programming thing, if it really is that

The article has already survived one AfD, and I am hard pressed to suggest it should be deleted. The only real issue seems to be the commercial links. If you aren't quite up to walking me through this process, would you perhaps be so kind as to suggest someone who might be willing? Thanks in advance. Risker 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Risker, follow this link which I've preconfigured to search for vivid.com links. That's the Special:Linksearch tool. For open proxies see:Wikipedia:No open proxies. As far as software to automate link spamming they will be hard pressed to do that. Any user that appears to be operating automatically (ie: through a bot) is subject to indefinite blocking. They'll have no success either with using IPs as Wikipedia has a spam blocking aspect that doesn't allow IPs to enter in addresses without typing in letters corresponding to visually garbled text. Follow these suggestions and if you have need for further assistance then don't hesitate to get back to me. Cheers. :-) (→Netscott) 20:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Netscott. I've managed to report the suspected open proxies and got rid of most of the vivid.com links (the only one remaining being in the talk page of the article). With that in mind, it probably doesn't need to be blacklisted. This is the diff talking about the "programming" bit, since I know nada about code I don't know if it is real or just a bunch of hooey...but it was the registered user who was writing the code bit. [3]. Thanks again. Risker 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qxz's user talk page

You commented "if the user wants to leave a notice let him do so". He did leave a notice—and reinforced that six times. If anything, please revert back to the revision that Qxz (adamantly) wanted. GracenotesT § 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Not trying to anklebite you there. If you re-revert I'll leave it alone (but please see expanded rationale at the TfD). I'm not trying to put you in 3RR checkmate or anything. The non-noincluding of the TfD template is a bit controversial, and many of thing it should not be used unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I put for that there isn't one here. The TfD is totally unjustified by anything but nonsense. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I appreciate your intentions and I will not revert you but honestly I don't see the TfD tag as either a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. I just see it letting folks know that this seemingly useful template is up for deletion. I wouldn't be reverting both you and User:DennyColt save for the fact that I did hear some dissention about the template's utilization. I agree with you as well that at this point the TfD appears snowballed but I am honestly interested in hearing a more complete cross section of the community's view about it. You should know that there are some points (although not strong enough to outweigh the template's immediate benefits imho) that User:Trödel makes that are valid. With the TfD message not displaying in a general sense only TfD concerned parties are going to be voicing their opinions on it and who knows? Maybe they're more concerned with the small technical limitations of the template than your average wikipedia editor. (→Netscott) 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, and for not taking my nomination personally, as I admire the work that was done. I do think that it this is one of those templates that tries to do too much - and tyis type of functionality should be part of the software rather than using what my physics advisor would call a "kludge" to have it do what you want. I also favor wide notification - it is the best way to find out if I am just completely out of it :) BTW, I very much like the improvements you have made - I have been doing some experimenting: User:Trödel/TplSandbox --Trödel 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOChidden

Aye, that looks much better. One more question, though - can you remove the inner border, or is that just impossible with the current CSS implementation? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thank you for your kind welcome. I have read the pages that you instructed me to read. Ibn Shah 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know about those software installations. Please do not ban me for that mistake. Ibn Shah 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Adversarial to whom? I just hate that website for slandering the Prophet so much. Ibn Shah 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I hadn't realized that the website had supporters here. Ibn Shah 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Could be. (→Netscott) 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You would guess Vkasdg? Well, it would be nice if you and he were getting along well, but his talk page suggests that would be surprising. Tom Harrison Talk 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes he popped up not long ago. Here he was editing Diyya in late February and he edited Sharia a bunch as well (all under an anon IP of course). (→Netscott) 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit to slavery is telling as well. (→Netscott) 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Note the language ← on this edit. (→Netscott) 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny enough save for Vkasdg (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s constant disruptive image edits on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article I got the impression that he probably wasn't all that bad as a person. (→Netscott) 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Vkasdg and Ibn Shah's use of language seems different, but there is not a lot to compare at this point. I guess things will either develop as they have in the past, or not. Tom Harrison Talk 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I don't have a clue what I'm doing, [4] as you may have suspected. Maybe it's just my browser, but a few weeks ago, all the user names in these templates shrunk for me, and look tiny compared to the words next to them (talk, contribs, log, whatever). So I was hoping to fix it so that they're all the same size again. But perhaps I should leave well alone. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N

Thank you for the link to the letter N. I have read the article. I think you have misunderstood the note in the article for With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. In that show, Randy Marsh is a contestant on Wheel Of Fortune. He is given 5 free letters to use in solving the puzzle, RTSLE. However, on the real Wheel Of Fortune, contestants are given 6 letters, RSTLNE. This is a valid, noteworthy difference betwen the real show and the one portrayed on South Park. The usage of N as a replacement for the word "and" does not really apply in this case. Captain Infinity 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

I'm already on the talk page, you know. Discussion is better than reverting people with such edit summaries as "nope". >Radiant< 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know where I stand on this issue. We're heading back down this road now. (→Netscott) 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And why are we doing that, exactly? You make some strange changes, and when I object to those you declare the entire page wrong. How is that constructive? You're welcome to expand the section on AFD/RFA/etcetera polls; stating in the header that "Wikipedia works by consensus however AFD works by polling" is an easily-misunderstood phrasing. >Radiant< 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Because the page reads false pure and simple. It starts off virtually negating polling as Wikipedia practice when everyone knows this is wrong. Even User:Kim Bruning will tell you this. Mark my word Radiant! , I am in this for the long haul. (→Netscott) 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said twice already, you're welcome to fix the header but your recent edit was problematic in that it introduced a false dichotomy. >Radiant< 12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: canvassing

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your ardent defence of Wikipedia from editors engaged in canvassing and general disruptive behaviour ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


as a sidenote... i found the canvassing method rather amusing... pass a few articles as GA, and then post on the talk page virtually requesting that they 'return the favour.' Wikipedia can do without this. thanks again. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the 'ole quid pro quo method employed by User:DavidYork71. I suspect he'll not be editing on the project for much longer. Thanks for the recognition. :-) (→Netscott) 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on the info posted to WP:AN/I and my talk page you may wish to raise a case at WP:SSP. See this as an example of a past case involving IP sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied text from my talk page to AN/I report and reported there that I have blocked the IP (and the others I could find) and have initialised the SP category page. I've asked for another admin to review the 48 hour block in case it needs to be extended - as I took the last two actions it's better that it be neutrally decided upon. Orderinchaos 08:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gwen Gale

I had already posted this on ANI, but I've protected User talk:Gwen Gale per these comments for a period of 6 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well

If you consider this all "time wasting nonsense", you shouldn't be unilaterally revoking guidelines. None of us has that authority. That some people still use the phrase "voting is evil" has nothing at all to do with WP:PNSD; if you wish that phrase deprecated, I'd suggest you nominate those few pages with "evil" in their title for deletion, both here and on meta. That approach has worked quite well for getting rid of the term "vanity". >Radiant< 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh

Oh, I understand it fine. I'm simply adding relevant facts. Stands to reason that any page that explains how to do something should also explain when (or when not) to do something. >Radiant< 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed, and since we already have that page it's rather pointless to create another. If you don't like the wording of a page, the solution is to edit it, not to create a POV fork. >Radiant< 08:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is getting sillier by the minute. You're saying that a page that is controversial may not point out that it's controversial? You have any policy backing that up? I thought not. >Radiant< 09:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Historical content

I kind of see why you're doing this, but rather than making Yet Another template this could be better solved by adding a parameter to {{historical}}, and/or restoring the wording that template had three days ago. >Radiant< 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong tag used at polls

Hi. The historic tag should not have been used at the polls which you referenced as examples in your edit explanation at the historic tag. The proper tag should have been "archive". I've changed the tag at both places. I think that the historic tag is very misused and misunderstood, that is why I have been advocating the clearer but wordier text within the tag. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. Much of the terminology at WP is a bit vague. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your greetings

Wa alaykum assalam. الٓمٓ 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My name shows up in between the timestamp on your page. Is that normal? الٓمٓ 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is like this: <span style="font-size:20px">[[User:Alif Lam Meem|الٓمٓ]]</span>
I created this account because as an IP I felt that I was not being taken seriously. So I figured should create an account, but it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. الٓمٓ
I am not familiar with that IP nor those two mentioned user accounts. I certainly don't want to impersonate someone else, but I think our usernames are different enough to easily tell us apart. الٓمٓ 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case, perhaps I am also a secret paid propagandist agent of CAIR or Hezbollah. الٓمٓ

[edit] Faith Freedom International

It is true that we should of course prefer secondary sources where such sources exist, but on the other hand I do not believe that believe that primary sources is per definition unacceptable if used properly and responsibly. In the case where I just restored some content supported by primary sources, I believe that was the case and that a very important aspect of the articles subject was being discussed. I would be great if the same thing could be written again using only high quality secondary sources, but until that happens I believe that we should keep the material that we already have. The part discussing the challenges could have better sources, but simply deleting it and not having anything on the topic is not a good alternative. As for deleting the article, I would also disagree with that. I believe that the articles subject is clearly notable, and I believe that there exist enough material and sources to make its notability pretty obvious. -- Karl Meier 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Netscott

Thanks for the background info. I'm actually just reviewing the contribs since his last block to see if another one has been earned, but I'm having major laptop problems and it's making it really difficult. :/ If you feel a community ban is warranted, you should propose it on CN (I'm sensing from emails I just received that there will be community support for it). Cheers, Sarah 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say Mr. York certainly has one of the strangest confluences of interests and expressed viewpoints I've ever seen in a Wikipedia editor, and certainly the most disturbing. - Merzbow 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I must say I agree. Orderinchaos 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re "any idiot"? - apologies

Hello Merbabu, per Wikipedia:Civility your edit summary here is not appropriate. For the most part folks who do GA reviews are volunteering their time to help benefit the project. Kindly refrain from making similarly natured commentary in the future. Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - it was indeed poorly judged on my behalf. But, please know that it was not my intention to belittle the GA process, to which I have submitted articles myself. Rather, i don't want to see GA status used incorrectly. I've tried to make amends be a self revert and re-revert with apologies. Frustration of seeing WP going to shit is my reason, but this is not an excuse. thanks and sorry. Merbabu 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probably a bad idea to pick more fights :-)

There's enough trouble working on Straw Polls, without actually provoking people, I think. Let's leave out merge and move requests, shall we? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's User:Ned Scott's doing. (→Netscott) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops. Um, your names seem rather similar. What's with that? --Kim Bruning 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC on Dhimma

For your edit here, actually the TOC looks better unhidden. It has lots of interesting topics. When I went to this page, I didnt even notice its hidden. I brought it back. Even though the white space is there, its more important for all those topics to appear by default on the page when a user sees that page. I have the same opinion on Islam. While you might see the TOC as disruptive, you should think of new users. They want to know the topics in the article. --Matt57 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And oh, you should unhide the TOC on your talk page too. The TOC is there for a purpose, e.g. for shortcuts. I propose that you should try to do something like a "TOCSmall" - something that is smaller, yet has all the links we need and maybe we can have something like TOCsmallright or left. --Matt57 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amatullah33

Hi Scott, It seems we have a new sock of David York: [5] --Aminz 09:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, what do you think of [6], and [7]. It might be David York?--Aminz 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is none other than David York. (→Netscott) 09:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious warning

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy

Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated. This applies whether or not the personal details are accurate.

From Wikipedia:Harassment

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself.

As a courtesy, I am not going to block you now, although you have been warned about this before. Consider this to be your very very final warning. If it happens again, I may even block you indefinitely. I'm not interested in whether your guess is accurate or not. Do not do it again. If you want to discuss this, use private e-mail. If you ever have a serious reason to raise concerns about who another editor may be (and I have no idea if this is the case here, as I haven't been following this), the only appropriate way of raising these concerns would be by private e-mail to the arbitration committee. Anything you post here that will lead to people making guesses about what may or may not be another editor's name will result in an immediate block. Musical Linguist 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? (→Netscott) 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
At 10:36 UTC, you made a post to a user talk page, in which you used what you presumably believed to be a user's real name. I have deleted it from the history. If it was just a careless slip, please take special care that it doesn't happen again. The only case in which it is appropriate to use what may be a real name when it's not the same as a user name is when the user himself or herself voluntarily provides that information. Under no other circumstances should it ever be done. Musical Linguist 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And I was "warned" for this where now? I have no clue who's name is real and who's name is false on the Wiki here. This particularly given the whole Essjay controversy fiasco. If this is in regards to who I think this is in regards to then that individual should stop defending Wiki hate mongerers as he has now done on Wikipedia on more than one occassion so that the project will have a better chance to fruitfully go forward. (→Netscott) 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Or

I know some people have criticised you on the talk page for this template, I just thought I'd drop by and say that I think it is excellent, and I intend to use it. Good thinking. J Milburn 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, there hasn't been much criticism about this tag of late... it would be preferrable that it'd not be necessary but unfortunately [original research?] is all too commonly found in articles. Folks seem to be getting some usage out of that tag. :-) (→Netscott) 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proabivouac

I'm confused at the message you left on his talk page. I don't see how he insulted you so much that you have to leave that comment. --KZTalk• Contribs 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/t/User_talk%7ENetscott_c779.html"