User talk:Tickle me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Clean slate 2 Mediation 3 Battle of Mu'tah 4 reference 5 Mosque 6 Invitation2truth 7 Dada page 8 distotion 9 Martin Kramer article 10 Hezbollah Edits 11 Your posts 12 Missy Myatt 13 The Sardar Article 14 Roman=Byzantine is NOT OR 15 Blocked for 8 hours 16 "elaborate" 17 Moving comments 18 for the buffs 19 Nasrallah 20 Stephen Roth Institute 21 Asinine WSJ article 22 Possible Acrimony 23 New Anti-semitism 24 Deine Synagogenbilder 25 Please helping the Cactus 26 You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Edward Said thowing a stone at Israeli soldiers.jpg 28 Thank you for your consideration 29 Ali Shariati 30 My RfA 31 Screen scraping 32 You deleted an editor's vote 33 Fair use rationale

[edit] Clean slate

Let me know if I can be of further assistance. JDoorjam Talk 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A case in which you are a party (Banu Nadir) has been submitted to mediation by the Mediation Cabal. Please review the proposed solution in this case.Geo. 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Mu'tah

You've added in the history page: "a soldier's view is relevant only adhering to a literal interpretation of sources, which WP doesn't, else A.I. Akram is a non-descript, self-taught historian at best"

I added this links, because there was many people on the talk page requesting sources. I know, A.I. Akram may not be the source, but in his book, he shows many of them. He had studied very early islamic sources, and interpreted them. But he shows the sources, so anybody can look at them, then he may interpret. What do you say about this?Mfyuce 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)mfyuce

Please cf WP:V, particularly "3.4 Self-published sources (online and paper)" and WP:RS:

• 3 Beware false authority
• 6 Using online and self-published sources
• 8.1 History

All applies to a military who claims to be knowledgeable on history without proving his scholarship and without known and verifiable reference for his scholarly reputation in the field. WP policy doesn't mandate any source to be better than none. On the other side, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a work of reference. Also, please post this on the article's page, where the discussion belongs. Unless you really understood WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:OR you won't succeed - we all had to read this sooner or later. --tickle me 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reference

There is a valid reference but it's in Persian .مهر تابان. This is told by Allameh Tabatabaei. Therefor it's valid.--Sa.vakilian 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mosque

Why did you revert Pessimists' edits too? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation2truth

Invitation2truth (talk • contribs) has been adding the same linkspam into about 30 articles. I've reverted most of them, but it looks like he may be starting over. Fan-1967 03:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins handled the problem. --tickle me 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dada page

Please explain why you reverted the change in the intro to the Dada page. Dada is not charecterized by nihilism - it is a political anti-war movement. Please justify your claim... Thanks 62.25.106.209 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cf. WP:RS and WP:V. You're to back up your claims with reliable, verifiable, and authoritative sources. You won't have problems anymore once you do. --tickle me 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong - there are no sources or verification for the assertion of cynicism or nihilism - this is just encyclopaedic analysis.Please see Dada talk page.62.25.106.209 12:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You already added {{fact}} to everything you deem to be unsourced or mere encyclopaedic analysis (OR), which is quite OK as an act of politeness, as others now have the chance to source their claims. You could even delete it. However, when inserting your claims, you're to follow the same guidelines. You did what what you're blame others for: inserting unsourced OR. Why don't you do research first and edit accordingly, citing sources? --tickle me 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources are already there - all throughout the article , just read it! I just removed some POV statements about the 'charecteristics' of the dada style. The radical critique of imperial war was there throughout the movement and were its orignial impetus and defining political and artistic line - as the rest of the article explains. 195.92.40.49 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distotion

Hi,

Please look at Hezbollah talk page. I described that Nasrollah's quotation is distorted. if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. If you read the text of his qutations you find that he didn't speak about Jews at all. He spoke about zionist and we know some of jews aren't Zionist.--Sa.vakilian 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Kramer article

Your last edit seems to have destroyed most of the article; I'm not sure how much you intended to remove. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First I wrangled with Firefox quirks, than there was a temp WP database lock-up. I fixed it now, thx for the patience. --tickle me 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah Edits

It would be appreciated if you used the talk page, rather than the Edit Summary, to discuss your views on editorial policy. JiHymas@himivest.com 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your posts

Hi, I don't see why anyone would sanction you for restoring your own posts. You've asked several times for people not to post inside your comments, so if they continue to do it, I see no problem with you restoring the integrity of your own post. Perhaps you could simply post your original post above the comments they've woven into yours; in that way, you're restoring your own material without changing theirs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missy Myatt

I would like to comment on your editing of the David Myatt article which seems to contradict the policy of Wikipedia in respect of articles about living people. You continue to insert what seem to be inappropriate comments in your Edit Summary. Wikipedia is about NPOV - your comments appear to detract from that. Coolmoon 13:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

O dear, if only the Führer Mr. Myatt could hear that. Hopefully, I could assuage your concerns. Trust me, you seem to be agitated by what might seem, at first sight and just hastily reviewed, as impudent and unmindful edit summaries, directed at some hapless IP, whose interest, apart from wikiland's, you defend valiantly - as could well be expected from the gentleman that you are. I trust you, however, to see at least some inner beauty, and the corresponding edit's propriety, on thorough and thoughtful inspection.

Should, by chance, an empty stomach be a pertaining element to the irritation that guided your ways to my humble wikipedic shed - may I suggest, say, some hearty bangers and mash, possibly Worcestershire sauce caring for digestive spice, to gratify nature's demands? Afterwards, let's meet again on gentler terms.

One grave issue, though, remains to be answered: Please, don't you mingle your postings, welcome, cherished, and valuable as they are, with those of the slimmest of virgins, dear and helpful in my wikipedic woes. À la prochaine, veuillez vous vous servir de cet lien si convenant, mon Pierrot Lunaire très estimé? Tout a fait votre serviteur le plus dédié: --tickle me 16:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tickle - you are quite right in one respect. I should not have mingled myself with SlimVirgin. Anyways, thank you for your reply. Gentler terms are always the best! Coolmoon 17:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sardar Article

Thanks for the cleanup. I'd been leery of going in and pulling all those quotes, but it was a needed operation. Thanks. MerricMaker 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman=Byzantine is NOT OR

Moved to Talk:Battle_of_Mu'tah#Roman_.3D_Byzantine. --tickle me 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 8 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what I was thinking, mostly I can count to three... --tickle me 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "elaborate"

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Changes_to_discussion. --tickle me 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving comments

Regarding this, please don't move people's comments. I don't know what "interposting" is, but I don't think samsara would appreciate your moving of his comments very much. Thanks.--§hanel 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"interposting": You don't need to know, as I spelled it out on that page, for the second time:

"Again, I ask all repliers to cite and quote, not to interpost. --tickle me 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

Besides, that's what WP:WQT says:

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."

I think WP:WQT had a good idea, so do others. I happen to not like samsara or whomever to move my posts in the first place, did you choose to ignore that? And let's not get into semantics, pls? Besides, I certainly don't "appreciate very much" samsara to alter my edits, on top of tattering them. --tickle me 06:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum, where one user's posts are atomic and cannot be split. Wikipedia:Etiquette is a guideline, not a policy, and is not to be used as a club with which to beat your opponent around the head. If one person presents their comment as a huge flow of paragraphs, it is common practice when replying to one specific paragraph to attach the reply to that paragraph with an extra indent: there is no licence to fill the entire screen with one person's opinion with no recourse to discussion. To be blunt, moving someone's reply away from its context so that it now makes no sense is a greater breach of etiquette, and a good example of the bad behaviour about which you appear to be complaining. You seem to have been here a while, so one would have expected you to pick up on this by now. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"there is no licence to fill the entire screen": That's my post, half a screen on 1024, 15 lines. What's huge about it?

"recourse to discussion": the recourse at hand is to cite and answer.

"It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow": WQT deals with talk pages, not forums. Even if only a guideline. Is it so far fetched?

"To be blunt, moving someone's reply": I want others to be able to follow, even if they happen to pop up next week. And yes, split threads make it hard to follow.

"beat your opponent around the head": pschemp asks me to "go jump in the lake"? I'm a outlawed already? Who's beating?

Why can samsara edit and vandalise my posts? sheer admin power?

--tickle me 07:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because you reverted [1] my correction [2] of your translation of my prose. I think I know what I meant. I can only urge you to stop doing that. Since this translation game seems to be a new one, I'm happy to explore the policy situation on this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You *are* not to correct my edits, arguably except for libel. Have a RfC on that, fine. It's not about what you meant anyway, that's for you to explain if you so feel - it's about what you wrote. And it's telling that you don't engage in a translation debate, however uncalled for that would be - instead you ressort to vandalism.

My translation is public. Alleging a "game" is administrative smear. You may add your own or contend it publicly. You're trying to intimidate me; being an admin, your abusing your powers. --tickle me 10:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're accusing me of various wild things. Tell me what you would do. Lay down and die? You must be kidding. So let's continue the discussion without detracting from the real issues. If you think that you can use my being an admin as an argument for me not being allowed to talk to you, something in your brain is screwed up. Show me where I've intimidated you. So far, you are the one trying to get me framed for vandalism. Funny, that. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for the buffs

Not that it matters, but this is my party:

Samsara's German version:

Ich bin dann die Quellen durchgegangen, um sicherzustellen, dass auch alle Statements durch Quellen untermauert sind

Samsara's translation:

I then went through the sources to make sure than all statements were supported by sources. [than: sic]

Mine:

I then perused the sources to make sure that absolutely all statements are backed by sources

The German conjunction auch is wholly redundant in the sentence above, lest it is interpreted as reinforcement - or as idiomatically poor. I assumed the former, the latter is on the house. ja auch being the next step intensification, one might argue how to confer a single auch's semantics here: be my guest. --tickle me 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm your guest. I wrote that passage. I can translate it. End of story. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasrallah

Tickle me, can you provide a link for the articles you mentioned. I tried to find the NYT one but I could not. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls Ctrl+F for "New York Times": there's only on NYT article linked. That goes for "New York Sun", "Michael Rubin", and "Amal Saad-Ghorayeb" as well. Pls move this to the article talk, should you want to follow up. --tickle me 18:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Roth Institute

I noticed you've done most of the work on the Stephen Roth Institute. The SRI website has served as an excellent source for a significant chunk of the content on the Venezuelan-Israeli relations page. I thought you might like to know. Respectfully, Republitarian 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

thx. I'm too busy to care for the Venezuelan article presently. If you need Spanish bits translated, however, feel free to ask. --tickle me 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asinine WSJ article

Re Bernard Lewis, there is no inference in the following text:

Ahmadinejad had said that Iran will respond "by the last days of Mordad", the 5th month of the Persian calendar.^[1] English translations picked the last day of that month, converted it into the Georgian calendar and omitted any hints to the original context. In addition, Lewis failed to note that Rajab 27 (which falls on the last day of Mordad in the Persian calendar year of 1385) is not recognized as the night of Mi'raj by the Shi'as[3] (the official religion of Iran is Shi'a Islam), but is known as the day of Mohammad's first calling or Mab'as, an event that is unrelated to the story of Mi'raj and Mohammad's purported flight to Jerusalem.

These are facts related to his article. In anycase, I propose removing the reference to that article all-together. A rather minor bleep in his long career. Kaveh 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That "English translations" picked/converted/omitted something may be true, it's your WP:OR nevertheless. That Lewis "failed to note" something is your OR, or POV, too - as is the rest.

Summing up: if such a prominent scholar commits such an egregious, blatant, shameful, and, as you call it, asinine blunder, the press, both popular and specialised, should be full with corresponding comments. These you are to find and cite. You're not to correct Lewis presenting your findings. Should you wish to follow up: please move this thread to the article's talk page where it belongs. --tickle me 12:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Acrimony

I added the new image to end acrimony and leave behind the haystack of words. You can remove my "crank" remark if you so choose.--Patchouli 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Anti-semitism

Hi. Your reverts on the page New anti-semitism are not very constructive. If you would like to make your case, please refer to the discussion page. If you are in doubt, check the source I'm using, before continuing your edit war...pertn 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deine Synagogenbilder

Hallo Tickle me, den beiden von dir hochgeladenen Innen- und Außenansichten der Synagoge Zerrenerstr. droht Löschung, und damit würde der exzellente Artikel Novemberpogrome die letzten authentischen Bilder zum Thema verlieren. Grund scheinen unzureichende Angaben zur Erlaubnis des Fotografen, die Bilder unter GNUFDL zu nutzen, zu sein. (siehe [4]) Kannst du dich zeitnah darum mal kümmern?

Wäre doch sonst echt schade drum. Herzlich grüßt Jesusfreund 08:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please helping the Cactus

On WP:ARCAID, I think Rosetta Stone and Cactus are worthy of our support. Can you BELIEVE we not have good article on Rosetta Stone or the cactus yet?Opiner 10:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Edward Said thowing a stone at Israeli soldiers.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Edward Said thowing a stone at Israeli soldiers.jpg. I notice the 'image' 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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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. MECU≈talk 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A valid "rationale" was given right at the bottom, I just forgot to label it "fair use rationale." --tickle me 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Shariati

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Ali Shariati. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Plm209 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What is it about my reasoning, that couldn't be understood? Could you not be bothered to look up a WP:RS's definition? Or is it the circular reference, that needs explanation? While we are at it, have a look at this and that. Pray you Sir, contact me, should you need exegetical assistance. --tickle me 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screen scraping

Hi. Please clarify for me - picking but one example from Screen scraping, do you disagree with my assertion that the following both an inappropriate external link per WP:EL, non-notable, and adds nothing to the article?

Dapper is a web-based GUI tool for extracting content from any website.

Thanks, CiaranG 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's free gui based web scraping service for non-programmers, thus its perfectly pertinent. --tickle me 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's anything other than linkspam added to the page to promote the company's service. I don't think the article should contain a list of links to any and all products relating to web scraping, regardless of notability, but I sense we disagree. CiaranG 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The site may well have been listed by its owner for selfish reasons. However, we don't punish intent, but evaluate usefulness. As screen scraping can be done either by programmers writing code or by non-programmers using a gui, its perfectly ok pointing to both. If you find a non commercial service providing gui-based screen scraping, say, at sourceforge, we won't need the commercial site any more. --tickle me 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted an editor's vote

Are you aware that when you cast your vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-globalization and antisemitism article deletion debate, you deleted [5] the vote of the editor who proceeded you? J.R. Hercules 06:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, that's really embarrassing. I restored his vote. --tickle me 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale

Reguarding your uploading of Image:Abdul Rahman(convert).jpg, please provide a Fair use rationale.--Sefringle 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. --tickle me 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)