User talk:Strothra/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Werner Drechsler

Come on Strotha, I think we went over all of this about six months ago, you cannot nominate articles for deletion out of revenge just because someone disagreed with you. I kinda thought we ended on good terms but I suppose you thought otherwise. Regardless, I think it is funny you would choose this article as it is about a guy who is so obviously notable that assuming good faith of your reasons does not even enter the equation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What? I was never doing bad faith noms then (note months ago) nor am I doing it now. You seem to be somewhat paranoid - I had forgotten that you even exist. I hardly see how you can even begin to make that accusation when I've continued to edit for months without interacting with you even once and nominated several articles for AfD - most of which have actually been deleted. I don't go around making bad faith noms. I will not respond to further unproven and ridiculous accusations. I just noticed that you have the article on your user page. Just because it's there does not mean that I do not have the right to put it up for discussion simply because I had an edit dispute with you months ago which is no longer ongoing nor do I even remember what it was. Trust me, I don't wish to revive any interaction with you, much less one that's months old. Not that I feel that I should have to prove myself to you, but note my most recent AfDs (not even my article edits): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I suggest that if you have a problem, you bring it up at WP:RFI and not by making baseless accusations. --Strothra 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If I was wrong then I apoligize, but the fact that you would still state that your noms all those months ago were in good faith makes me somewhat suspicious. If your nom had happened on a different day I wouldn't give it another thought, but the afd occured at the same time that another user was following me around to a diverse set of topics and undoing my edits after I reverted him on an unrelated topic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about that other editor, but do understand how timing could make you more suspicious. As I said in the nom regarding this article, from what I had found on Google, didn't seem to make him stand out from other German POW's - I couldn't find anything which pointed to why his story was notable even if it has recieved attention and am not sure if attention in itself should be reason to consider something notable. I don't believe that his story is that notable in comparison. Good luck with that other dispute. --Strothra 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
What makes the story so notable is that his murder led to the execution of the six perpetrators, and that was the last mass execution in US history. This became very controversial because it was during wartime and many people in the military thought that american prisoners would be expected to do the same thing if they caught one of their own acting as a stool pigeon for the Germans. This story was featured on a one hour long history channel special [7].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Drechsler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Drechsler.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CW thing

It looks like the carictures bit is actually two issues. Where you sit on both issues is ambiguous. Would you mind voting again? crazyeddie 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Strothra 16:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bush AfD

I speedily closed the AfD you proposed on Bush. Your reason for proposal was "doesn't meet WP:BIO or notablity guidelines". On the contrary, she clearly passes WP:Bio per the reasons I posted. Therefore, your nomination boils down to vandalism which is a cause for speedy keep. If you want to talk more about this, I am always willing. Also (just so it doesn't come up) please be aware that I am a liberal democrat who detests the current political state of America. I will be highly insulted if anyone accuses me of bias for closing this debate early. -bobby 18:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I wasn't going to bring up your political orientation. I'm actually in favor of keeping those things unknown and vague. Although, I would appreciate you not calling it valdalism. It was a good faith effort to have the issue discussed. You don't think that people are so quick to assume that the children of president's are notable? Yes, she was involved in the political campaign but only in a periphery role. Many other individuals were involved as well. Because she is the president's daughter she has cameras following her and so she's going to get more time, yes, but that does not neccesarily make her more notable than others. She's not a politician although she has been on the periphery of her father's campaign, she doesn't work in politics. She doesn't even live in DC any longer. I would say that it's a far stretch to claim that she's as notable politically as her mother. Her mother travels frequently and makes frequent speeches and does a great deal of real poltical work. Also, a newspaper or online news article does not count as a published "work." A work would be a manuscript, book, journal, or an entire newspaper itself. An article is not really a "work," but a piece of a work. Your choice to close it is your choice. I think that, if anything, your decision to close as speedy keep will even help my content dispute since it's official recognition that she meets WP:BLP for inclusion of the alcohol charge because she is a public figure and that the notable event is not infringing on her privacy. I tried arguing that it recieved quite a bit of press attention, but apparently the other author thought that BLP excluded her because she's not a public figure.--Strothra 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the alcohol charge should be included. If you want, I'll voice my support in the appropriate forum if you show the link. As to your response to my comments, it seems we are mostly just bickering over word usage. I did not claim she "is as notable politically as her mother." I merely mentioned that she qualifies as a political figure (this term is not limited to politicians, and politicians need not live in DC) because of her family ties. Two of the articles I cited supporting her notability per WP:Bio mention the daughter's good faith efforts. Normally, this sort of activity would just be considered humanitarian, but as the president's daughter it becomes political (for the same reason Bush's appearences in New Orleans after Katrina were political, and not simply supportive). I would argue that her role in the presidential campaigns was more significant than most because the spotlight was on her personal life much more than it was on other figures' lives (although perhaps not as much as Elizabeth Cheney). As to the wording of "published works", I would invite you to read the criteria I referred to which specifies:
"This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries"
I was not trying to present something that wasn't there. In the end, I will take your word that it was a good faith effort, although I still believe these things are better handled in the appropriate forums. My use of the word vandelism may not have been appropriate, but from my point of view, the nomination on the grounds of NN despite overwhelming evidence that the individual is in fact notable could not be called anything else. As I said at the start, I will be happy to help your efforts regarding the alcohol charge (I believe one of the media outlets I cited was the Smoking Gun article). Public figures deserve to be remembered for their failings just as much as they do for their victories. Regards, -bobby 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Grew

Re [8], next time please merge the thing yourself and redirect instead of the redundant article. Remember that GFDL requires us to preserve the contribution history whenever content is merge so deletion is disallowed. Thanks. - crz crztalk 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I didn't know if such a move would have been allowed or not. --Strothra 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I do agree with his self-characterization as "uncivil and aggressive". I do not believe I insulted him or engaged in personal attacks and if I did, I apologize and will try to avoid doing it again. You have to cut him some slack because he is so young and knows so little about the world yet.--Filll 19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:DallasCBD.xls

Hi there...

I noticed you tagged the above "image" as orphaned fair use. I do not believe it used under fair use, I think that the tag on the page is {{PD-US}} which would make it a public domain. Because of this tag, I have nominated it for discussion at IfD, I am not sure it qualified for a speedy tag deletion.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. It isn't under fair use, is it. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. --Strothra 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude

You could use an e-mail account. Morton DevonshireYo 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, I don't know if I'll keep the feature activated though. --Strothra 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance and tolerance of my lapse in protocol. Dgray xplane 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

Strothra, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Good luck. Please note for the future that talk page postings regarding edits you wish others to comment on might be considered spamming. I personally don't consider it spamming unless it crosses a certain line of obnoxiousness, but others do. --Strothra 02:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

Please do not accuse good faith editors of vandalism as you did User:Editingoprah. If you disagree with an edit discuss it on the talk page. It is extremely serious to accuse other editors of vandalism when their edits are clearly in good faith. These warnings are necessary before vandal can be reported for vandalism and blocked. You are likely to get yourself in serious trouble for attempting to intimidate good faith users just because you disagree with their edits. You damage your own credibility and the community as a whole. Please read WP:VAND where you will see that Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This clearly does not apply to people just because you disagree with their edits. Alun 10:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned the user for removing cited information from wikipedia, he had been warned before and had blanked the warnings from his talk page which is why I placed the final warning tag on his page. Although for this case, I would say that whether or not it was a deilberate attempt to compomise Wiki is questionable eventhough the editor was engaged in an edit war over the article. A user engaged in an edit war makes it difficult to assume good faith and thus the deliberate nature of the edit to be vandalism is not always clear. The policy specifically states that, "Not all vandalism is obvious." Specifically, the editor was warned for this edit [9] in which he stated that cited information should not be included if it was "long winded and off topic" yet the cited information he was targeting comprised only a small portion of the article and whether or not it was off topic was dubious at best. Further, the editor was reverting positive edits to the article by making reversions to a much earlier date. Bad faith from this editor may also be assumed by the very fact that he is known to blank the vandalism warnings from his talk page in addition to becoming involved in edit wars. This editor has also been blocked three times for these edit wars. See his block log: [10]. There is nothing in the WP:AGF policy which states, "be stupid and allow people to walk over you." --Strothra 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. You did the same thing with me. Just because you disagree with something, that person is not automatically a vandal. This is a serious accusation and one that you should weigh carefully before making false accusations. Please refer to the above quotes from the vandalism definitions. I came to this page to leave the same definitions but am glad to see that someone else agrees and did it for me. You also need to read the assume good faith page. Drwhit73 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your warning was for this edit [11] in which you removed a legitimately satirical work from the article which you can find here [12]. When you make edits that remove information without properly conducting a search to make sure that you are removing something rightfully then your edits to Wikipedia are careless and, more importantly, good faith cannot be assumed. A good faith removal of information would have been one you made after making sure that you were not removing legitimate information under that topic. Rather, it was clear that the situation was more likely one in which you simply removed the item because you yourself did not recognize it. If you would have ran a simple Google search you would have found this book. The first level warning on your talk page is appropriate. --Strothra 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • are careless and, more importantly, good faith cannot be assumed.
Good faith must always be assumed. If you think this editor was being careless, then simply revert the edit, this is not grounds for a warn, and certainly carelessness cannot be called vandalism. Your defence is no defence at all. It is clear when vandalism has occured. You are not concerned with vandalism, but with trying to intimidate other users. Alun 05:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop posting spurious "warns" on other user's talk pages. This is not assuming good faith. It is clear that I have neither vandalised Black people, nor have I made ant personal attacks. this is not a personal attack, or if you percieve it as such then you would have to explain just how it is an attack and exactly how it is personal. There is criticism of other users in it, no doubt, but I make no reference to any particular user, and therefore how can it be "personal"? Your constsnt attempts at intimidation by posting illegitimat "warnings" will get you into trouble. Be warned I will report you for this sort of intimidation if you do it again. Alun 05:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In [13], you wrote, "I see that you also got warn ed for "vandalism" from one of the crazies at Black people." See the policy at WP:NPA which states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I was the one who placed the tag on the editor's talk page and the editor who you came to harrass after commenting on their talk page. Regardless of whether or not it was direct at me, it was still a personal attack against an editor - so don't even try to pull that defense. You may also want to read the WP:AGF policy while you're at it - "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I've cited why the other editor's actions presented evidence to the contrary above in regard to their vandalism warning. Note that you state, "It is clear when vandalism has occured" yet, the policy states, "Not all vandalism is obvious." You also claim that I am attempting to intimidate other editors, yet I do not actually edit the Black people article so I have no interest in the content of that article. I simply have it in my watchlist and pay attention to the destructive edits. The same goes for the Left Behind (series) article which the other editor was referring to. Moreover, you have made your point - If you have any further problems, stop harrassing me about them and take it up with formal channels of intervention. I have also never given you a warning for vandalism - so, again, stop harrassing me. --Strothra 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly my comment was on a User talk page and not on an article talk page. Secondly it did not mention any other user, it was merely a passing comment. I didn't make any personal reference to any other editor. Several editors from Black people have been giving these spurious warnings. I have recieved one,[14] User:Patrick0Moran recieved one [15], Editingoprah recieved one [16] and User:Gottoupload recieved one.[17] So there was a spate of people going arround essentially "namecalling". None of the editors accused of "vandalism" were anything other than good faith editors. Some editors have taken it into their heads to try and intimidate other editors, it's as simple as that. I did not "harrass" you. You are the one doing the "harrassing" mate. Please do not accuse good faith editors of vandalism. You have no defence for your behaviour. Please accept that it is you that was engaged in intimidation of other users, and that it was you that was inappropriately using "warns". I will tell you again, these warnings about vandalism have a purpose. When you want to report someone to intervention against vandalism you must have warned at least three times. The same goes for the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. If you had reported Editingoprah and claimed that her edit was vandalism, it is likely that you would have got the ban and not her. If you seriously believe that my edit to Editingoprah's talk page was a personal attack then I suggest that you report it. I do not think you have a leg to stand on because I wasn't talking about you, but making a general comment about the "warns" flying between people engaged in editing the article. This is also from WP:NPA Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.....This policy can be a prime candidate for WikiLawyering, which can be defined as asserting a technical interpretation of the policy to override the principle it expresses. This page is frequently edited and examples and remedies that do or do not appear here may have been edited to suit one editor's perspective, but not be generally agreed to by the community. In the end, common sense is more important than the exact wording in this and other policy articles, including the examples included above. You were merely trying to engage in intimidation. You have failed and now you are trying to make excuses. Please also see WP:SPADE. Alun 06:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Street photography page protection request

Hello! You need to make your request at WP:RPP rather than WP:AIV, in order for the proper audit trail to be maintained. 86.141.241.122 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) has now been blocked. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have audit trails for these things? Interesting, will do. Thanks! --Strothra 02:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, pick a better source

There are many sources which indicate the core point. Sorry I picked a bad one.--Jimbo Wales 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I fixed it myself with a link to the bbc.--Jimbo Wales 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed, and I added an additional source from Jewish Virtual Library. Thanks, --Strothra 23:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This "gentleman" Gordon seems to be very upset and I do not understand why. Do you have some history with him?--Filll 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he is a troll who viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with him and loses his cool very easily. He edits wikipedia with no regard for its policies because he hasn't been here long enough to learn them. Anyway, the gay controversy should be addressed because it is a controversy surrounding him which has received considerable media attention. However, do not give it too much importance in the article. --Strothra 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Sam Adams

I would encourage you to read Rjensen's sources. His literal quotes are usually correct; but I have sometimes found that he completely misrepresents an author; he has invariably quoted the portions of the book that agree with his simple and hagiography view, while ignoring more moderate qualifications even ones on the same page. Septentrionalis 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This guy's edits are horrible. He seems insistent that they stay. I really don't know what to do about him to avoid an edit war. --Strothra 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam in the US?

Why did you revert? I didn't remove any info -- I moved it down into the demographics section. I don't think I added anything controversial either. Just reverting without communicating or giving any reason isn't collegial. Zora 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora. I just changed it to asking for a citation rather than reverting. Thanks for pointing that out. Just as an observation regarding the intro and the article itself: The article title is Islam in the US, yet the focus seems to be on Muslims in the US. There's a difference between presenting the demographic group than studying the way Islam is unique in the US, if it is at all. I believe that Islam in the US is much more progressive than in many other countries, but that's just an assumption. Again, why an article on Islam in the US is needed, not an article about Muslims in the US. --Strothra 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I would not have noticed that had you not pointed it out. Did I violate 3RR? This is annoying.PelleSmith 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think possibly since you did make that many reverts, however, they're not all the same reversion. Perhaps that would count for something? --Strothra 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not entirely sure I understand what counts. 3 (one mistaken) are reverts of the Hajj comment and 2 are reverts of the CIA comment. So niether of those things were reverted 4 times by me, however I don't know how it works. I hope his/her blatant lie in the comment about nothing existing on the talk pages, counts for something.PelleSmith 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

re Michael Ignatieff

Sure, I'll be over there shortly. I also wanted to respond to your edit summary, "you run IN an election and FOR and office, sorry sarah." There is no need to apologise; I agree completely. I was reverting the editorialising and unfortunately that grammar correction went with it. Believe me, I know exactly how you feel about this editor. He is currently under an indefinite block but it's unfortunate (for us) that he uses a dynamic IP, making it difficult to enforce. Sarah Ewart 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much :). --Strothra 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've written a few replies. However, I must admit that I wonder if it wouldn't be better to ignore his comments. Most of the comments he makes seem to be deliberately loaded to get a certain reaction from us. And he shouldn't be editing anyway given that he's currently indefinitely blocked. Sarah Ewart 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree, but he'll just edit war. I think that protecting the article only seems like a temporary solution, but probably the best one for now. --Strothra 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting Husond to s-protect the article. I was willing to do it myself and will do so again if necessary, but after the abuse, spurious RFC and the onslaught of personal attacks and trolling I was subjected to last time by Ottawaman and his puppets, I am quite relieved to see someone else do the dirty work. :) Sarah Ewart 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah, no problem. Would have done it myself if I were able. --Strothra 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Strothra, just as I thanked Sarah, I wanted to give you a hat-tip for standing up to abusive editors on the Ignatieff piece. They've scared away a lot of fair contributers with their personal attacks and accusations - Finnegans wake 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the support. --Strothra 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black People

Since no one can agree on which definition of black to focus on (African ethnicity or dark skin color) why do you object to having 2 separate articles that focus on each of the definitions? This seems like a good solution Cardriver 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of African ethnicity is a critical component behind everything which evolves concerning skin color. As much as you would like to separate these two, they cannot reasonably be so indiscrimately separated. --Strothra 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What about people who have a dark skin colour and are discriminated because of it, but who are not of recent African descent? How is "African ethnicity" a critical component concerning their skin colour? I'd just like to know because I really don't see the link. Descrimination occurs against people who are not of recent African origin but who do have Black skin. So I can't agree that recent African descent is critical. And how does one define "African ethnicity"? I don't get it, you are likely to make a lot of Africans (and I mean people who live in Africa) if you try to imply that Africa is somehow ethnically homogeneous. Alun 20:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to assume that a Pan-African identity exists. Then again, I don't think any element of the question has an easy answer. I don't believe that we can globalize the article in a way in which would do every element of "black people" throughout the world justice. Perhaps there should be multiple ways of splicing up this article into other articles or perhaps the article title here is not specific enough. I'm not sure in my own mind so I believe I am going to stay out of this one from now on. --Strothra 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast.

Thanks for reverting my talk page. --Takeel 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, apparently your talk page was on my watch list. I usually check the pages in my watch list which are edited by anons. --Strothra 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) No problem. Thanks for all your help. --Strothra 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Berg

Thanks for listing the image at IfD. I do agree with you that Image:Berg-chair.jpe is not fair use actually. Even if I am right about the other picture, fair use can only justify one copyright image of the event being used. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought an admin would be better able to address it rather than us debating it. I would assume that there is a way to go about keeping the image or at least one similar. I just see that it conflicts with fair use rationale on a couple levels. Perhaps someone else will know of a better tag/rationale to use. --Strothra 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please

Speak to me. What has been going on with this wee war? Lets see I know of someone who constantly got into edit wars. um... Ah yes! User_talk:Missingno Please talk to me and explain what has been going on. --Darkest Hour $$$$ 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor is vandalizing the article by blanking information cited from news outlets such as the Guardian and BBC. The articles are not indicative of the editor's stance that they constitute a "minority" position on the subject. These are major news outlets. Alternate views are represented in the section. If the editor does not feel that all sides are being represented then he should contribute constructively by adding information. I stepped in as a third party into an existing edit war between himself (an unestablished editor) and another unregistered editor. In his previous edit summaries he has falsly called this information "off topic" and "rejected by concensus." Further, if you continue to make veiled threats, I will take the issue up on the Admin noticeboard. --Strothra 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! Where Are You Seeing The Threat? My brother is Missingno silly. Thats how I came to know about it. Any way the article problems were listed on the help page. I am just a pencil not the master. --Darkest Hour $$$$ 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ps:Please stop playing with me note and Just awnser it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs).
I answered your "note" in my initial response to you. Please format your "notes" correctly or stop leaving them. --Strothra 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Where did you see my threat?????? Again you have not awnsered that Q.I am getting angry, you wont like it when im angry. --Darkest Hour $$$$ 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? Why's that? Are you the Incredible Hulk? --Strothra 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah very funny, in fact I just got finished watching it. Now please can we talk together like civilised humans, and not raging Hulks? Where's my threat? --Darkest Hour $$$$ 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kriss Donald

Hi Strothra, you made a false assertion under the discussion page of user 82.31.15.153 when you stated I did not wish to “compromise or participate in discussion”. If you had read the discussion you will have observed I had engaged in a lengthly discussion with user FrFintonStack from the 29th November. We had narrowed our disagreements down to two points. Your assertion was incorrect. I have been engaging in the discussion for some time and since you say that articles should not be edited without consensus it is amazing you would want the edit as it stands, as a number of people did not agree on the current edit. Could you please go to the discussion and address in detail my points on Wikipedia policy. Also, could you direct me to the policy which states no edit with cited information may be removed from the article even if it does not conform to Wikipedia policy. I am happy for everyone to engage in a discussion, but so far you have not addressed any of the issues. --Guardian sickness 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not stating that you had not made arguments on the talk page - I was pointing out that you were claiming concensus when no such concensus existed. Further, you are unilaterally taking action to remove large portions of cited material coming from notable sources in order to advance your edit war. I am not getting involved in the article over a content dispute, but rather as a 3rd party weighing in on your edit war with the anonymous editor. If you wish to seek more third opinions then please make a request at WP:3O. Myself as well as User:Halaqah have given our 30's which disagree with your unilateral action and destructive editing. You are a new user - I suggest that you take time and observe and make small edits to Wikipedia before making major ones. --Strothra 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you clearly stated I did not wish to “compromise or participate in discussion”. If you look back at my history of contributions you will see I made many small edits to the article in question and altered them when pointed to relevant policy. Your assertion that you are some kind of a neautral third party is questionable at best. You are clearly happy for a large section, which there was never consensus on, to have been inserted.

I was claiming consensus among the registered users who had participated in the discussion most recently. FrFintonStack, Newbeat and myself all stated that the large section, which exists to cast doubt on the motivation for the killing, should not exist. Only one unregistered user wanted this section to exist. As I stated, myself and FrFintonStack had narrowed our disagreements down to two points, but you have ignored that entire section of the discussion. Did you even read it?

I'll ask you once more. Could you direct me to the policy which states no edit with cited information may be removed from the article even if it does not conform to Wikipedia policy? --Guardian sickness 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your talk

Does it still need to be semi-protected? It's been almost a month now, so I'm just checking back to see if you still need it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it can be removed. --Strothra 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your talk

I have unprotected your talk page. Just request it from an admin or on WP:RFPP if it requires protection again. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Strothra 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

funnypop12 and Muhammad

Well i had just asked to give me sources for "medieval christian veiw of Muhammad". And want answer about those diputed pics of Muhammad. Give it and i'll be satisfied. I have different point of veiw based on reasons. Please tell them to stop this anti-funnypop things please. I hope you will help me. Regards Funnypop12 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that passage is cited and so it should remain in the article. Feel free to add to it if you have your own references in order to include other points of view - but they must be referenced. As far as the images go, I am fairly certain that they are actually of Muhammad as the face is missing from them. You would have to give us some proof that they are images of Persian kings. --Strothra 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharia

Nonsense? I wrote that under Sharia islamic law preteen children are executed by the state. You claim this is nonsense and delete my remarks, yet a few pages down it explicitally states: "Under the Iranian penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gold333 (talk • contribs).

The Iranian penal code is not Sharia Islamic law. --Strothra 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Skirboll

Thanks for your efforts in trying to save the article. Too bad it failed, though. Red Director 19:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Coupla Things

Hey there, You contacted me about WikiProjects:GulfWars some time ago and I think I'm ready to throw into the project and hopefully get it up and running with about 10 - 15 members by the end of the months. On an another note, I noticed your a member of WikiProject Argentina, I was recently asked to work on the negelected Portal there, something I've been reluctant to pick up however if you would be willing to help, I think that together we could operate the portal. --Sharz 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What portal is it? I don't know if I have the time, but I do still think that the Gulf Wars project is a good idea. --Strothra 07:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, please be aware that revert warring damages Wikipedia. Please don't do it, instead try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the articles in question. If you continue reverting you will likely end up blocked under the 3RR rules.-Localzuk(talk) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that I was close to violating 3RR. The issue was actually settled quite some time ago and the editor is now attempting to bring it up again. --Strothra 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/r/User_talk%7EStrothra_Archive_4_71a3.html"