User talk:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ابو فول دانيال ابن امير المهكرى

My name is Daniel Earle Mehkeri, but you may call me Fool, especially if I seem to be taking myself too seriously. My username is a silly arabicisation of these. (I don't actually know very much arabic at all. I just like saying "Abu-Fool".)

Please feel free to drop me a note. Please also feel free to simply undo any of my actions if you disagree with them, no need to ask first. Offending me is unlikely.
Ignore
all
rules

It's not just a good idea.
It's the law!

Contents

[edit] Recent changes patrol

Hi, thanks for your assistance with removing vandalism, you're doing a great job!

Perhaps you'll also consider warning the editors who introduce the vandalism. The Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol article give a number of tips, especially the section explaining about warning editors.

Once again, thanks for the good work. If you have any questions then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards LittleOldMe 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do, sometimes. Mostly they go away on their own though. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I was dismayed, when I reverted what I thought was vandalism, to see the oddest user page. It seems from the edit history that you created it yourself. Am I correct in this assumption, or have I somehow re-introduced vandalism? Regards LittleOldMe 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's mine, yes. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It makes me happy when someone supports me as a candidate.--Berig 16:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've briefly run into you as an IP, I'm pretty sure you'd do well as an admin, and I am surprised at the reaction. Oh well. As you say, there are worse things than being rejected at RfA. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What, this? You're kidding. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vi

I still haven't gotten wikipediafs working smoothly, else I seriously would, yes. I'm a HUGE KISS fan ;-).

Hmm, though, in reality vi(m) -with its several hundred help pages- is not very minimalistic, of course. Now if you had said nano, maybe you'd be on to something. <innocent look>

--Kim Bruning 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Oh feep, even nano is starting to syn!

Oh and I did see your personal trifecta page. Being able to play with "the rules" like that is one of my admin requirements (all other things being equal, of course). Drop me a line and remind me anytime you get nominated! :-) --Kim Bruning 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't meet your other requirements, specifically I don't know how to hexedit the raw database dump file. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Meh, that's a requirement for devs. My admin requirements are somewhat more relaxed. ;-) --Kim Bruning 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrie ten Boom

The Corrie ten Boom page has some wierd comment about her dying without children cause she was an old bat? I've never encountered vandelism on Wiki before but I would guess that is what that is. It looked like you changed things for the better on that page at least once and I haven't the faintest clue how to go about editing a wiki page. Just thought I'd bring it up with someone who might care & know what to do.

Some folks ought to learn one of those wierd hobbies where you can balance couches on your nose or pull 250 lbs with your right earlobe. People have too much time on there hands if that is how they get their entertainment. Looloomama 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrant

Hello:

Please do not change my edits to tyrant.

It is extremely important that people get a proper indication about the nature of a tyrant and tyranny.

Absoulute power gained is simply not a necessary prerequisite to identify a tyrant or tyranny.

Tyrant and tyranny are as much descriptive of intent, as action and status.

To say that only a person who has gained ABSOLUTE power is a tyrant, is a misrepresentation of the traditional and common

syntax of this English language word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.138.214 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tyrant

Hello

Please do not edit my changes to Tyrant as I am attempting to help others to better understand those who are considered "leaders". It is so important that this word be properly understood. Tyrant and tyranny are words that reference intent as well as action and status.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.188.138.214 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] List of VC firms

Still don't think it should be deleted. :-) (Even if it is very random!) But thanks very much for the heads-up that you had prodded it, letting me know was impressively community spirited. Jheald 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contested prods

1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English encyclopedias.
1913 advertisement for Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest and one of the largest contemporary English encyclopedias.
 Well there are rules that state no original research. but there is also a rule that states if a source can be referenced, it should not be deleted. so I will vote no for delete. Remember we are trying to create an encyclopedia i.e. the sum of all human knowledge. --Parker007 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrie ten Boom

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Corrie ten Boom, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please check before reverting revision! -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize... I've added a ref and change a word, now it's more clear. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and good idea. Thanks. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Catalano

As indicated at the top of your talk page, I've undid your revision as I don't agree. I've outlined my reasoning on the article talk page if you care to comment.

[edit] Dr. Strangewiki

Nice name :) >Radiant< 09:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Niverville, Manitoba

I beseech you to reconsider your recent edits to Niverville Manitoba, discarding future population projections. Elementary mathematics confirms that Niverville will someday surpass Toronto in population, and the high speed rail links and waterways will be built if that comes to pass, no matter what the cost. Undoubtedly, in 375 years even more amazing transport facilities than were cited in the article will be built.

A small town like Niverville, which admittedly has very little going for it today, needs all the help it can get in Wikipedia in order to attract business investment etc.

Please consider a reversal, restoring the excellent article that had been written, and is now lost.

Dear sir or madam,
I symapthise with your desire to attract investors to your town, but, if there really are people in existence who have money and would be convinced to invest it by ridiculous calculations like that, then I'm afraid that I have a much better opportunity for them in my own company, A Fool And His Money, Incorporated.
Best regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sir
I have an advanced math degree. This is simple compounded growth. Already, Niverville house values are rising 78% faster than in Toronto, in anticipation of what is to come. 'Tis the fool who does NOT invest in this town in 2007! I beseech you to reconsider your harsh and derisive comments - I feel you are exerting undue power because you are an approved Wiki editor. One must remain objective, even if there is a little town somewhere one despises. No??
I am not an approved anything, and I get a tugging sensation on my leg, my anonymous friend. The town isn't a fixed rate bank account. Population growth is highly variable, and, as I recall, I couldn't find the growth rate you cited was in the 2006 census anyway. If you have a reliable reference for that, or the 78% housing figure, I think that would be welcome, but don't you think adding your multi-century extrapolation makes the whole thing seem a lot LESS credible? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/statistics/south_east.pdf shows Niverville up 28.3% in 5 years, to 2461 souls.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/191221 shows Toronto up 0.9% in 5 years to 2,500,000.
Now take a 28.3% growth rate, compounded, and apply it to Niverville, over a period of just 29 census periods, or (29 x 5 = 145 years) and you'll have a population of 33.8 million.
Doing the same for Toronto at just 0.9%, and you have a population at that time of just 32.4 million.
Sir – the math is good, thank-you so much for giving me the opportunity to verify the info. I look fwd to seeing the article restored.
Good! I have restored the growth rate with the reference you have provided. But I hope you understand that I have not restored your extrapolations - with your advanced degree, you should really know better. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Wow, I actually got two comments about this, but in short ... I browse the articles contested for speedy deltion a lot (Category: Contested Candidates for speedy deletion), and a lot of times, I find that because people don't know Wikipedia policy, they replace the speedy deletion tag with a hangon tag, despite the fact that they should put the hangon tag bellow. I figured that since this user said he wanted time to remove it, and since the prod tag allows five days - and is not supposed to be replaced with a hangon tag - the user just didn't know how it worked.danielfolsom 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Cool. I hope I wasn't being too much of a nitpicker, and I hope you don't mind that I added to your AfD nomination. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of Gleemax wikisite (and copying this message from the Unhinged discussion)

I apologize if I am doing this incorrectly, but I need to understand a few things. While there is a promotion for Gleemax going on, and there is an alternate reality project (largely unspurred by the marketing), the main goal of the site is to provide information. So far we have been directed to do a scavenger hunt, complete a quiz (ironically based off wiki definitions) and decode a message with base64 that pointed us to a Youtube video called operation poppycock (which appears to be a prankster messing around in the Wizards offices) My concern is that *other* clues were left in the wiki that have since been deleted. Just randomly, I took a screenshot of the old wiki, but I don't have all the links provided at the bottom.

1) What date was the gleemax wiki up? If it was after may 24th, 2007, there is a good chance this IS part of our scavenger hunt as well.

2) Can we (the people following this) get a copy of the original page as it was set up?

3) Why was Gleemax deleted when you have wiki's on Ilovebees, for example, which is exactly the same sort of promotion, and the same sorts of references?

Sincerely, Xavier Rodriguez (somnovore@gmail.com)

There is nothing incorrect about what you are doing. I may very well have missed it, had you only posted it to the Unhinged discussion. Now that you've got my attention, I will answer there. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing text from the Cicero Article

Unnecessary sentences and dead references are no valid explanation for removing text. Please stop! What you do is vandalism. As this is not your first vandalism, you are closer and closer to being blocked from Wikipedia. Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Cicero. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

[edit] Hi

Hi,

I was trying to go through wikipedia to find articles with related information where i can link to us, but it appears it does not comply with your regulations. I do apologise, there is a total of 3 links, 1 removed by admin.. and I have removed the other two.


..........

I can't find the other 2 links I've put in!! Can you help me remove them? :( Only if they don't comply :D

..........

If I write my own article, can I put my own links to my website?

Hi Hoiung! You can't find them because it's already been done.
Now, if there was an article on your company, it probably would link to your website. You could try to write it, but my experience is that you should not, as you will probably be unable to resist self-promotion, and the result will be a backlash, with your article just getting deleted, and you getting annoyed at having wasted your time.
If you think your business deserves to be written about, you can try the discussion pages of a relevant article or two and ask if someone more neutral would do it. This guideline also has some good suggestions.

Thanks for your understanding, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hoi

[edit] {{Hero-of-the-USSR-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better name

Daniel = ‘Abdul Hakam (عبد الحكم, which gives similar meaning to Daniel)

Earle = Walli (not used as a name, Amir is more a Prince than a Earle, but its used as a name)

Two questions: where does the name 'Mehkeri' come from? Why do you like the "silly arabicisation"?

--DelftUser 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I considered some other tweaks too. Maybe if I were re-starting, I would, but I can't be bothered to change my username now. And actually the middle name is probably spot on: "Amir" and "Earl" are not precise matches, but they are used both as titles and proper names. The only other candidates are "Sharif" and "Malik" I think, but "Amir" is closest. "Mehkeri" - one theory, which may be cursed, is that it's from Machir. I like the username because it incorporates my real name and pseudonym, and sounds simultaneously self-important (kunya, nisba, the whole nine yards) and self-deprecating (Fool!) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Says another Earle: This is an interesting discussion! Especially so since I married an Arab, and am trying to learn the language myself. DelftUser's suggestionplus a little Googling suggests that my name might transliterate - with patronymics - as "Amir ibn Daud ibn Yakub ibn Faris al-Qaum". The latter is a Nabatean deity syncretised with Mars; and "Faris" is as close as I could get to translating my grandfather's name: Herbert is apparently Old German for "illustrious warrior", and Faris means "a heroic knight".

Well, that was a fun way to spend ten minutes :-) Hope I didn't bore you. Cheers, -- Earle Martin [t/c] 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I know, right?

I really do love Wikipedia more and more every day. That said, I support 100% to change IAR back to the old "nervous and depressed" wording. That was much better. :) Rockstar (T/C) 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Mein Führer! <right hand tries to salute, left hand wrestles it back> Sooo as a result of Ignore All Rules, You've Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Wikipedia? That essay doesn't express most of what I wanted it to, and it expresses some things poorly, but at the very least I can be smug about how cool the title is. Cheers, --Dr. Strangewiki (Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! Methinks you've been right all along. Well, both you and Kim. ;) Rockstar (T/C) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So where have you been recently?

I figured you'd find the changes at IAR to be most interesting... :) Rockstar (T/C) 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently? I wasn't even gone 12h when you wrote that. Nice to know I'm missed, but holy amphetamines batman! --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
12h is too long! You're now officially expected to be on Wikipedia 24/7. No sleep for you. Your and Kim's comments are far too much fun. And he's been editing sporadically for a while now, so you have to pick up the slack! Rockstar (T/C) 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Bloody hell. I'm going to need a raise. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Man, you're on target again! (I replied on my talk page, but didn't know if you had it watchlisted). Rockstar (T/C) 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hero of the soviet union

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Grutness explained many things in the intro paragraph for the deletion discussion. Having a specific category for something so that people can find articles to expand is great, but sometimes those categories can be too specific. The general guidelines say that stub categories should have between 60 and 600 articles or so for optimal use. I hope that answers your question, but if you need anything else, let me know. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Requested

Hi, I hope you mind me asking for your help but you were very encouraging when I first came to Wikipedia.

I've been working with another editor on a small sub-section of the Falklands War article. As it is a sensitive subject I wanted to get the balance right in discussion before adding to the main article. Unfortunately the other editor for some reason is persistently assuming bad faith in the reason for my edits.

Anyway to cut a long story short. I made an edit and then reverted to show what I intended to put. I didn't think it was perfect and assumed it would require a little more polishing. You can find that edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&oldid=155276903#Public_Relations

There are various reworkings on the text in the discussion page here. My last suggestion for the edit was:

The Royal Navy expected Fleet Street to conduct a pro-British news campaign but the majority of the British press, especially the BBC, reported the war in a neutral fashion. Reporters referred to "the British troops" and "the Argentinian troops" instead of "our lads" and the dehumanised "Argies". The exceptions were the jingoistic tabloid paper The Sun with headlines such as "Stick it up your Junta!" and The Daily Mirror, which was decidedly anti-war. The Sun was widely condemned for its use of the headline "Gotcha" when announcing the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano.

My main concern is that the main reference currently suggested is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/story/0,11707,657850,00.html

I'd agree with most of what is written, however, I'm concerned that this article in question is basically an opinion piece and the suggested edit may fall foul of WP:SOAP.

I would appreciate your feedback as to whether we're veering into "opinion" territory and whether the proposed edit is in line with wiki guidelines. Thanks in anticipation. Justin A Kuntz 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick update. The other editor I mentioned put the text in anyway, so I've tidied it up by adding some suitable references. I would still appreciate some feedback thanks. Justin A Kuntz 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not been terribly active in the last few weeks. I've looked at the version you linked, and the current version of the section, and some of the talk page. To be honest I have a bit of trouble figuring out from the talk page what has happened and what still is in dispute, if anything. I should also say that in the end I'm not all that knowledgeable about the war.
My opinion is you're not too far into opinion territory, as the reference you're worried about seems to serve to establish that the Sun was condemned for being jingoistic. It sounds like there might be a question whether failing to be pro-British in the manner of the Sun is actually "neutral", but that can be lightly reworded if it's really an issue. So at least on the "factoid level" it seems to be fine. Of course, we should ask whether the collection of factoids hangs together to present a good picture, and whether it is necessary to reference the Guardian's piece or if sufficient support can be found elsewhere. This will require judgement, but you seem to be doing alright.
I hope you are not finding things too frustrating. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, thats fine. The reason for my initial concern was that another editor wanted to make an entirely one sided edit based on the Guardian article alone. When I reverted that edit I was accused of "sledge hammer" editing and he refused to listen to concerns. In the end I decided to just ignore his comments and edit the article for balance.
Achieving balance seems to be difficult I notice but I like a challenge. Justin talk 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a favor to ask

In your essay "Ignore all rules, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Wikipedia" you said that the trouble with Wikipedia is the it only works in practice not theory. I'd like to know if this was original or if you heard it somewhere else. A lot of similar quotes are bouncing around the internet, but I want to have a source to cite. I may not stay on Wikipedia so if you could respond by email to greg (dot) zeigler (at) gmail (dot) com, I'd be much obliged. UndZiggy 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've ignored all rules and moved it to User:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri/Ignore all rules, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Wikipedia as I didn't think it was very helpful and it had no incoming links from other WP pages. --kingboyk 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry - while I'd like to claim credit, I really doubt I was the first one who expressed the sentiment that "the trouble with Wikipedia, of course, is that it only works in practice; in theory, it is completely unworkable." Unfortunately I can't remember who said it either. It was a while ago. As for the rest of the essay I nuked it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)