User talk:Netscott/Archive-04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Cardinal Newman High School

Dear Netscott, How pleasant to have a private (relatively) tête-à-tête (metaphorically) away from the discussion page. I fear it would be improper until after the discussion is closed. I do believe (and this is merely to spell out the implication of my arguments on the project page), that it is a matter of the merits of this here school, not of High Schools in general. That seems to me to be the line of argument you are advancing in favour of Keep. So far, only TruthbringerToronto has advanced the superficially attractive but finally treacherous argument from principle - all high schools are notable (s/he says) therefore we must preserve the article on this High School. May the best arguments succeed. I would value your comments on my subpage. Note Benenden School, 480 pupils but still notable. I don't think size matters. --Stroika 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my subpage. If those schools are not notable then CNHS is definitely not noteable. (to 'e' or not to 'e'? both spellings look wrong to me). As for my comments (not on every keep vote!) - I do not want anyone thinking unanswered arguments are unanswerable arguments. --Stroika 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Your mention of Oxford, Cambridge and Berkeley suggest that we might be at cross purposes. Eton College and Winchester College are secondary *schools*, for 13-18 year olds. They are not universities. I know that Americans use the words "school" (as distinct from High/Middle/Elementary School etc) and "College" for institutions of higher education (Universities included). Perhaps my carelessness misled you? On other matters: Perish the thought that something is not notable simply because I (or you) have not heard of it.--Stroika 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on my debating style on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinal Newman High School are all well taken. Some of what I say is waspish but I always play the ball not the man. It is a pity if anyone is offended but as I remarked to Netscott elsewhere I don't want anyone thinking unanswered arguments are unanswerable. (Apart from anything else I regard it as a courtesy to my opponents.) I had understood the process of consensus meant the admin closing an AfD had to weigh the arguments used. In my view the easiest way of doing that is if some indication of the weakness of each argument is given as it comes up. Hence I have restrained myself (I hope) from from having a pop at those who say "Keep per X". And as that becomes more frequent I am less likely to comment. I have been rather surprised that apart from Netscott nobody has started picking holes in the arguments any of the "Delete" editors are making. There is at least one embarassing hole in my own position (and no I won't tell you where). My most recent edit was only 24 hours (exactly) after the thing started, so it hadn't dawned on me that I might have been mistaken about the way consensus is determined. It's been a while since I contributed to one of these things but I remember an approach like this being taken on the Bobblebot debate (computer assisted human editor rapidly delinking dates, he got hammered and gets blocked periodically). This has been sent to Capitalistroadster, Alkivar, Kuzaar & Netscott. Love, peace and hair-grease --Stroika 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosecutions by Prophet Muhammad

Salaam, I was thinking that if an article can be created which would discuss all the reasons why Prophet Muhammad prosecuted these people. What I have understood so far, I wrote on Banu Nadir/mpov under Muslims explanation for prosectuion. It is very important because the battles and People killed by Prophet Muhammad is a very important part of Islamic history. And then a link to this article can be given on every page which would discuss such killings. This proposal can also be posted on Muslim Guild project. The work has to be top class because the way he is being portrayed, that doesn't make a good sketch of prophet Muhammad's personality in one's mind. SaadSaleem 07:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutions under early Islamic governments SaadSaleem 00:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Excellency

Sorry, I probably could have been more thourough there. As far as I can see, pretty much all of His Excellency's communications with that admin have been making incivil accusations, and the finality of the warning simply has to do with the fact that he's been warned about this repeatedly in the past. --InShaneee 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

A counterquestion: what's specifically right with his edit? Pecher Talk 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's up to the editor to provide evidence that the material inserted is relevant and supported by sources. This has nothing to do with assuming good faith. Pecher Talk 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, why does what Aminz has inserted belong to the article? Pecher Talk 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, the verse Pecher quoted (in Jizya section) comes along with the verses I quoted in the Lewis's book. For some reasons, only that verse was quoted here.--Aminz

[edit] Some diffs from other articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Najis&diff=52372278&oldid=52283450

Also, Pecher has not explained yet what I need to learn according to his comment. If you can ask him to let me know what I should learn about my religon, that would be great.

Also this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rules_of_war_in_Islam&diff=53199313&oldid=53198530


I was involved in this discussion, but this comment is not directed to me.

I'll provide more diffs. --Aminz 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

Netscott, Lewis says:

For Christians and Muslims alike, tolerance is a new virtue, intolerance a new crime. For the greater part of the history of both communities, tolerance was not valued nor was intolerance condemned. Until comparatively modern times, Christian Europe neither prized nor practiced tolerance itself, and was not greatly offended by its absence in others. The charge that was always brought against Islam was not that its doctrines were imposed by force- something seen as normal and natural- but that its doctrines were false.

He also says:

Under Muslim rule such a status was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews. It ceased to be accepted when the rising power of the Christendom on the one hand and the radical ideas of the French revolution on the other caused a wave of discontent among the Christian subjects of the Muslim states, an unwillingness to submit to the humiliations or even to threat or possibility of humiliation, which existed in the old older….."

The article hides the fact that our moral standards has changed over time. It tries to make people judge the historical facts through modern eyes (rather than in their historical contexts). By doing so, the articles produces a negative picture of the history of Dhimmi's. But that's not what Lewis is doing. That's what polemics do (again according to lewis himself)--Aminz 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, unfortunately there is no much sources available on the internet. So, I had to get Lewis's book from the library. Netscott, I also have limited time. Studying Dhimmi is not my major. I however would like to be productive. Lewis's book is very rich. I like it. I expect the article should at least quote Lewis's work fairly. --Aminz 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving from the incident for discussion.

The latter case appears to be true, but I do not know if he created them all. I do know that there are some strange copyright/trademark things going on, several anonymous users that appear from nowhere, etc. The incident has been recorded. This really needs, maybe to go to several admins to look into, I think. I wish I could say more, but I don't have a good grip on the wiki-vocabulary yet for such things. Ste4k 13:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a late thought, I have suspended my own actions regarding this area. Ste4k 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your WP:ANI report

No matter what in this case your commentary was improperly edited. That is bad. For now just let admins review your report and come to a determination as to the best course of action. Thanks. Netscott 13:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you mean what I said in on the ANI page was wrong? which commentary on what page? Ste4k 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be courteous if you could advise the new user where he went wrong. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] starting over again

Hello Netscott, I think I understand what you mean now. And sorry about a confusion. When you replied in that admin page, I thought that you were an admin. And is it correct that what you meant to say was that the person who edited my commentary in the AfD was editing improperly?I thought you were saying that what I had edited in the Admin page was improper. So, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you there. okay? :) Thanks Ste4k 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies too (in case I hurt a very valuable editor of the encyclopedia). --Nearly Headless Nick 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What is your opinion of this article section Netscott? I performed the research on the citations and edited them with dates, etc. If this book is truly notable, I think it would be fine to have an article about it, but that article must be factual and not based on propaganda. The spread of the other articles attached are all connected like a web and none of them have any real basis. It was my opinion that submitting them for deletion was the correct thing to do. The central article itself, on the other hand, is debatable. What does NOT need to happen, in my opinion, is another debate. What DOES need to happen though, is gathering of reliable resources, and quoting from them to make the article itself encyclopedic. Would you agree? Link to article Ste4k 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: The Nerd front in the War On Terror

Well, here's some more polemic goodness.

Wikipedia has been turned into a soap box for anti-Islamic propaganda and hate speech. Bat Ye'or's insane rhetoric is being framed as fact here for God's sake.You already know what's going on here. By definition, a polemic is someone who incites a dispute. There NEEDS to be a dispute here. You're fine with Aisha being represented as a whore in her article, I'm not. You're fine with Muhammad being portrayed as an extravagant genocidal psychopath, I'm not. Yes, I am in fact 'hateful' of the bigotry that's flooded into this thing. I don't go about editing articles on Judaism, taking content out of Mein Khamph as if it's fact. That's what your friends do here. You're not of Muslim heritage, none of this means anything to you. People like Daniel Pipes has been open in saying the enfranchisement of Muslims in the US is a threat to Jewish interests. The lobbying groups backing him up have people like Bat Ye'or addressing congress. On the media front, everything on Muslims that US citizens are exposed to pushes the negative image. If you've ever lived outside the US, you'd know the difference. Enter a word on google or Yahoo, its Wikipedia entry is the first thing to appear in the list. And the first item which, given the popularity of Wikipedia, most people would probably click on, would present them with the most vilifying and negative POV-driven image of what Islam and Muslims are about. People get saturated with this view of Muslims, and they become less sympathetic whena needless process of war kills over 100,000 brown arab 'towel heads'. Guantanamos and Abu Ghraibs don't really bother them much anymore; given what they've heard about those A-rabs, they probably got what's coming to them.There's a reason why many European countries cut off freedom of speech when it serves the purpose of defamation.

So don't lecture me one way or the other.His Excellency... 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Assuming good faith on the part of some people is a foolish task. I don't assume good faith when there's reason and evidence to believe otherwise. WP:AGF doesn't oblige me to. I've made no assumptions about your 'faith', so quit complaining. Congratulations on living with a north-Moroccan for two years. Your thank-you-for-living-with-us gift is in the mail. There are people outside of the Wikipedia network who are noticing the flood of bigotry being dumped here. It's not just something that I see, that nobody else does. His Excellency... 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

His Excellency has been blocked for his attacks, especially this one. Just an FYI. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Reichstag

It's brilliant, isn't it? Maybe you're right about the catting, I just love dry humor... you know, where things are done with a straight face, as if it's really entirely serious. But, well, it is a logical extension of WP:POINT, so I guess perhaps it really is policy... Snoutwood (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How about no cat, but with the normal policy template? Basically, I'm of the opinion that it's obvious it's kidding, we don't need to spell it out at all. We can say that it's our highest tenant, completely seriously, and it'll just make it funnier; no one'll take it seriously. Snoutwood (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
To put it differently, having the cat and the template won't make anybody think it's serious, it'll just make them laugh. Snoutwood (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
O.K., great. I'll have to live catless for now. I'll probably be blocked and desysopped for breaking the 3RR soon anyway. Snoutwood (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It will have been WORTH IT. Best... desysopping... ever. Snoutwood (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
MUAHAHAHAHA! Snoutwood (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This has to be the strangest thing to go rogue over in the history of Wikipedia. Snoutwood (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
3RR, here we come! Mr. Treason (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am this close to protecting it and getting my ass chucked out of here. Nice shortcut, by the way. :) Snoutwood (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Snoutwood (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ste4k's deletion attempts

Regarding my editing of Ste4k's deletion proposals, I wanted to clarify something.

I can honestly state that I did not consider, nor did I know, that editing those few words that I did (all I did was interject the words "Ste4k believes that") constituted editing another editor's comments. The reason I didn't know this is because his/her comments on those pages were largely verbatim trascriptions of Wikipedia policy. And because the transcriptions were so long, I had not noticed that he/she had signed the comments at the end. I sincerely thought that all he/she had done was copy and paste Wikipedia policy.

I also felt that he/she had incorrectly copied Wikipedia policy, because in his/her deletion nomination it was stated "this article meets Wikipedia qualifications for deletion". But in fact, that is not something that the nominating editor decides. That is something decided by the other editors who vote on the page.

In other words, in my view, all I was doing was attempting to correct what I perceived as an impersonal (as opposed to "the personal comments of") and erroneous transcription of Wikipedia policy. I didn't know that those were considered the personal comments of another editor.

I have been in something of an edit war with this person for some time now, and in all honesty I can say that this editor seems to be a bit on the paranoid side. He/she has repeatedly said that the only reason I have any interest in these articles is because I make money off of them, which is a completely false accusation for which he/she has no supporting evidence. And when I have responded to his/her comments, I have continually been told that I am "harassing" him/her, when in fact all I was doing was responding. This person seems to me to be a bit on the paranoid side and to also think that he/she establishes Wikipedia guidelines on his/her own. He/she has a history of nominating articles for deletion merely on the grounds of content disputes. -- Andrew Parodi 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGF please

You know I'm not a vandal, Scott. I'd never assume you'd do something like that deliberately, and I don't know why you assume I would. — JEREMY 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You should AGF because I have demonstrated sufficient understanding of wikipedia to know that indulging in such absurdly pointless editing will get me absolutely nowhere (ignoring the fact that I personally don't believe in deleting any comments from talk pages). We may be in conflict over content, but we're not in conflict over wikipedia: both of us work hard to improve it, and both of us understand and adhere to its formalisms and procedures. If you won't AGF, please at least assume I'm not a moron. — JEREMY 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure myself, but I think I did start the edit as a revert to your +cat, but somehow didn't notice MX44's comments when I checked the diffs (possibly because I selected the wrong top-point for the diff). I was then was disconnected from the LAN while editing, then completed my edit when I was reconnected some minutes later (I'd actually submitted the edit just as I was disconnected, so I did this by refreshing the page) — by which time your comment edit had gone through. Clumsy I admit, but not malicious. (Having looked at this further, I am now happier to accept that you couldn't see a good faith explanation that made sense...) — JEREMY 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia #1

I didn't add any references, but atleast now the claims and allegations about Islamophobia is attributed to their source, which is something I believe is important in that context and in that section. Hopefully, I'll have time to continue this work later today. -- Karl Meier 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I currently plan to do just that to all the points that is included in that section. However, it seems that Raphael1 doesn't agree with what I've been doing most recently: User_talk:Dmcdevit#Article_ban -- Karl Meier 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here comes the Spiderman!

(Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to promote their cause.This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay! Its like bloody Mensa at drinking hour in here! Steven Hawking is buying the next round!

Next stop: The Kremlin!

Thankyou!

Dfrg.msc 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk:JPC

Before you hit my talk page with a warning about technical violation of 3RR, I would point out that the two consecutive edits earlier constitute one. If you intend to dispute this, I am prepared to self-revert. — JEREMY 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. But unfortunately one can't go back and change edit comments, can one? — JEREMY 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question (and yes, I know I still haven't found the time to have a detailed look at Islamophobia, other than to note the interesting structural differences between its WP:LEAD and Islamism's); I'd say "possibly". Is there a reaonably RS cite for the opinion? — JEREMY 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I ended up removing both my previous WP:POINT and WP:3RR warnings in good faith — Indeed, and I do appreciate that.
I'm just trying to understand person-to-person your view about why the cartoons shouldn't be presented like they are. Is it not about context? — It is about context, yes. I have consistently maintained that the images must remain on wikipedia (as I've said before, I freely admit I came to the article originally to locate the images). However, with that as an absolute given, I believe it is in the best interests of the project that we present the images in a sensitive fashion. Now, I realise people like Tim Usher are offended by the idea of being sensitive to people's peculiarities (no disrespect for Islamic aniconism and Muslim reverence for Muhammad intended, of course), but this project has NPOV at its very core, and even erring on the side of caution will bear fruit in the future. So long as it remains easy for people to find the images, where's the harm in us taking what is clearly mainstream Muslim feeling into account? It's not self-censorship, it's just being polite to (or allowing for the personal foibles of, if you prefer) one's neighbours and fellow editors.
Al Fagr put one on their headline page for F's sake. — In the context of "look what these insentitive idiots have published", they might have gotten away with it; but wasn't the Al Faqr reprint hugely controversial? — JEREMY
Al Fagr generated 0 controversy... not a freaking peep — Uhuh. I guess it's not read by many hotheads.
It's funny but despite your attention having been repeatedly called to Piss Christ there's not been word one out of you regarding it's displaying of this image. — How many people have died in rioting over Piss Christ? Do Christians perceive themselves to be a persecuted global minority? And is there an aniconistic tradition in Christianity I haven't heard of?
you want to attribute the sum total of over 200 editors voting yes for the cartoons' display on the article as motivated by a desire to show solidarity with Jyllands-Posten regarding freedom of speech. — I don't accept your premise. Clearly, based on their own commentary, a significant number of the editors working on the cartoons article are Free Speech activists. That is my only claim in that regard.
You know, I'm fully cognizant of what context means as I demonstrated some time ago. — Scott, I don't (often) doubt you're acting in good faith, nor that you're a smart guy. I just think you're wrong. — JEREMY 03:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom arbitration

Thanks for your note - yes, I do seem to have accidentally disturbed a hornet's nest which wasn't actually connected to this arbitration. I have made private representations about the current proposed decision and don't think the time is now right for kicking up a fuss. I don't know what the protocol is on third parties lobbying the ArbCom. David | Talk 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I read it you can comment, and possibly introduce motions, on the Workshop page. Most arbitrators also publicise their email addresses, and while they don't say that they invite email about ongoing cases, I guess that is what it's there for. However, the rumours that I have been spotted hiring a Spider-man outfit and arranging a flight to Berlin are untrue. We have a saying in the north of England, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar", which translates as "The best way to persuade people to like you is to be nice to them". David | Talk 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fact

Just a bit. I could barely reload the page without there being 3 or 4 more keeps on.It was my first close, but I think it was a pretty obvious one that didn't really require an admin to do. I was concerned with what it would do to those thousands of pages and how it would ruin what it would look like and confuse users of the page. --Crossmr 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can come up with a better way in the future for small templates. If everyone subst like they were supposed to, it would be a non-issue as the link would never show up.Though substing during a TfD would make a mess. --Crossmr 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true. But this kind of thing could happen to larger templates you would regularly subst too. It would be too bad if there wasn't some way to subst the template in such a way that the notification of TfD only remained on the page as long as the TfD was active and was somehow removed automagically when the debate ended. --Crossmr 01:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classy guy

Hey Joturner, I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that the way you handle yourself on Wikipedia is top notch and that it was a true pity that your last RfA wasn't a success. May a future RfA see you to adminship. Cheers. Netscott 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I really wasn't expecting that (which makes the compliment that much better). joturner 01:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy?

Images used :

Merged (badly) Using ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5.5

K? Dfrg.msc 03:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tagging of Articles by Maakhter

Please have a look at the following:

I have provided specific criticism for each and every article I tagged. In many articles wrong map is used. I cannot write an article about the use of incorrect maps. All I need to do is to tag and then raise the issue in the discussion.

Here is an example:

This article is biased and represents pro-Indian View.

For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”

How much space are you going to provide to explain Pakistani point of view?

There is a huge list of anti-Pakistani films and books in this article as well.

Maakhter 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

[edit] United Nations

Here is what the United Nations thinks about this dispute. People who want to contribute should use facts. This is not a space to express personal opinion.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/docs.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unmogip.pdf

Thanks.

Maakhter 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition of Same Mistakes

Please also read following reply to ragib. I am also going to post it on my talk page.

Same mistakes are committed in all of the articles I have tagged. It is not necessary to repeat same arguments in each tagging.

I have also posted the above to you in your talk page.

Maakhter 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Pakistan

I have seen the map of Pakistan at the following web-page of United Nations.

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/pakistan.pdf

The above web-page confirms my point of view. This map clearly shows line of control and does not show Azad (Independent) Kashmir (Pakistani controlled Kashmir) as a part of India.

Thanks

220.233.27.8 05:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ReichstagClimb.jpg

Because of the copyvio notice - this image has to "be removed" from wherever it is used. I see you reverted my attempt to solve it the quickest way. The copyvio notice clearly states:

Do not resubmit the media that was here before. It will be removed. This media will be kept if Wikipedia or the poster is found to have copyright permission compliant with the license.

How do you think would be best to remove this image from all offending places? Ian¹³/t 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied here then. Ian¹³/t 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk now. Ian¹³/t 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Ian¹³/t 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanatics?

For it to be a personal attack, I'd have had to attack a person. Instead, I have chosen to so characterise a subset of the editors of the article, but not to specify individuals. If you believe this is counter to a particular rule, please point me to it. — JEREMY 10:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy there are only a few editors you could be referring to. — Yeah? Who? — JEREMY 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No debate? Then please, open an RFA against me and let's see what they make of the situation. Otherwise, stop threatening me. (And here was I thinking we were getting along just fine. Sigh.) — JEREMY 11:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag does not equal Dispute

Tagging an image with Template:PUIdisputed is an alert that "This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed."It is not akin to the type of dispute discussed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldness

I see you are in agreement[1] but bolder than I am :-) - "by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others".The user has in the past objected; [2]However, I have no objections - the issue had been raised with the user [3] [4] [5] [6] and there have been other attempts to fix similar issues: [7]... etc. --A Y Arktos\talk 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esposito speech

I've just replaced the speech with a link to wikiquote, but I've made a mistake: I removed everything below the "references" section. Unfortunately I somehow can't fix it. Would you please restore Islamophobia again? Raphael1 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Raphael1 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image

The source is here , [8] --CltFn 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

First I want to say that I am sorry that I didn't repond to your first comment on my talkpage before now. I haven't had much wiki-time the last few days, and for some reason I didn't notice it... Anyway, my reply is that it is of course true that Ali Sina (and a lot of other critics of Islam) is "anti-Islam" or in other words against the ideas of that religion. However, I am concerned that making the claim that his writings represent an (anti-Muslim) "sentiment" is not the most neutral way possible to characterize his works. My problem and concern is about the word "sentiment", which I believe indicate that his position and opinions regarding Islam is based more on feelings rather than on logic and reason: [9] [10]. What I would prefer is that we create two new categories, Category:Critics of Islam and possibly Category:Prosecution of Muslims. The first one would have to be limited to actual critics of the Islamic religion in it's disclaimer, as I believe reasonable concerns has been expressed about who could be included in a category with such a title, and it will also have to be recreated through a undeletion process. The second one might very well turn out to be a POV magnet, and it's will have to be followed closely, but still I believe it might be worth the effort. Their titles would be more neutral than the current "sentiment" categories.

It is true that John Esposito has made the allegation that some specific comments by Pat Robertson has "incited Islamophobia". However we already mention that, and I can't see any reason why we should include other comments by Robertson that no-one notable has alleged is "Islamophobic". In other words, we already have a reference that mention Pat Robertson, so why should we ever want to include another one that is based on original research? -- Karl Meier 18:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion of Peace

Sure, I'll just leave his stuff for now, eventhough I see it as something that is just absurd. Now that you noticed this and made a comment on it, I trust that you'll make sure that things are presented in a reasonable way there. However, I am not going to spend my limited time discussing that kind of edits. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world should I remove the message, and why in the world should I not feel free to remove it in the first place? Anyway, on second thought I might make a comment on this on the talkpage. I am just a bit tired of dealing with obvious nonsens. It's such a waste. -- Karl Meier 20:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Just made a short comment: [11]. I hope you will join the discussion and offer a third view on this. -- Karl Meier 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your efforts regarding this issue. -- Karl Meier 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with that anon. -- Karl Meier 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No violation, so no problem. But thanks for mentioning this to me anyway

. Another thing is that my new friend has just joined BhaiSaab on the Asma bint Marwan article, so now there is TWO editors reverting (and deleting half the article) in order to make their individual points about my editing in other articles... -- Karl Meier 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and I know that you are right about it. I'll make a new rule for myself: Don't ever make a new revert of new content without a comment on the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 19:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model of good behaviour?

Good morning.I really should be doing something useful, banking, shopping for food, ....However, I have created an image of a notable wikipedian demonstrating good behaviour - not encyclopaedic though :-) Images are not my forte, but perhaps good enough for the bush albeit less colourful than the alternatives, but actually done for my amusement and not particularly intended as anything more.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It is Winter here - we have just suffered the greatest number of coldest days in June since 1984 or some such apalling statistic.Some of us would love to be in Berlin climbing the Reichstag - unfortunately I amafraid of heights.A spider-man costume wouldn't suit me either.But inspite of all, I will come out and confess to be a "pro-climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman editor".[12]Australia and the Vietnam War is worthy but somewhat depressing at times.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't necessarily have changed my vote, but I feel it is important to acknowledge community concensus and move on.I note that there are efforts being made to address the spamming, including by both you and JzG, which was the basis for my initial objection to the page.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It was for Wikipedia's protection that I nominated the page for deletion.It seems I can't help myself[13] - I had better move on though :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You are way too kind [14]--A Y Arktos\talk 09:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The roll back button is perhaps a bit harsh but easier - and my patience is wearing thin.You aren't an admin yet - would you like to be nominated?Although you weren't very active til February, I see you are doing plenty of useful things, very patiently.I suspect there would be plenty of support, though I see you have had a fair bit of controversy and edited in some contoversial areas.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-)

[edit] Asma bint Marwan

Well after learning that we shouldn't have long quotes [15] [16], I found an article with a ridiculously long quote, i.e. Asma bint Marwan. I applied what I learned, but Karl appears to disagree with himself. BhaiSaab talk 19:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[17] BhaiSaab talk 21:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Those quotes are not (yet) on wikiquote. BhaiSaab talk 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context?

I can't seem to open that link successfully (the page fails to render in either Firefox or IE) and the title "Flags retired with honor" isn't self-explanatory. Can you elucidate? Oh, and as for the "gotcha" link to the Commons' cache of Muhammad imagery, at least there's a good excuse for linking that from Muhammad; that's certainly not the case for the cartoon controversy article. — JEREMY 06:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asma bint Marwan

What BhaiSaab wants to remove from the article is the only historical information that we have regarding this incident, and unlike the opinions of John Esposito on the "Islamophobia" article it is absolutely essential to include. It's not just a quote, it's the only information that we have, and in that situation it must be included. If we can summerize it somehow without loosing any important information, then of course I wouldn't mind that, but to remove it is just unacceptable. I noticed that Politicallyincorrectliberal has expressed similar concerns on the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 06:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SPIDER

Thankyou sir.You help means alot as I am realitivly new, but learning quickly.Getting images of the Reichstag is relativly easy but the spidey images arevery difficult, Ive devoted alot of time and effort looking to no avail. I did however, post a notice on the talk page of Spider-man, appealing for help; and I am hopeful that some of the "experts" might have a costume.

Rock the Casbah,

Dfrg.msc 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd

thank you :) --Striver 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of Islam. And she is an activist. Why keep her off the list? --Dweller 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I think you'll have your work cut out though, with a narrow definition of the category. Not everyone here is well-intentioned, or with no desire to score points! --Dweller 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] award

Feel free to copyedit this! Thaks! --Striver 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:-) Moved to user page... I may shrink it down though... Thanks Striver. Netscott

[edit] Talk:Spider-Man revert

You were absolutely right. --Chris Griswold 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-man image

You asked at Talk:Spider-Man for a public domain image.From Commons: GFDL image at Image:Spiderman in San Francisco.jpg.The story behind the image isn't present but the uploader (Commons:User:Folini) - had dated and placed it and I assume it was to do with the movie release which was May 2002 according to the article.There is also Image:Spiderman and child.jpg.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't look at the history and understand it was a revert of our friend until I saw a new addition to his talk page.His friend has been indefinitely blocked.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CNHS

Why thank you for your kind comments. I see the article has been getting the level of editing merited by the subject matter. Dmn I'm glad it's over. The moral of the story in my case is don't edit Wikipedia before breakfast. Then just don't edit Wikipedia. ;-) --Stroika 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Scott

I am truly sorry for not replying to your message. Its true that I have been spending some time on editing the dhimmi article and other distractions, but that's no excuse. Your encouraging words were much appreciated. I am going to use them as a reminder to myself to stick to the facts and always try to improve the quality of sourcing. I hope you'll forgive this lapse on the grounds that I am still finding my feet in wikiquette (is that the right word - wikpedia etiquette) as well as editing.Itsmejudith 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "it" -> [the drawing]

The translation says it, but it is an "it" which is qualified in the (unquoted) preceeding sentence

We have some alternatives to qualify it, one convention being to replace "it" with the noun it represents as in:

There are interpretations of [the drawing] that are ....

Another option is:

There are interpretations of it (the drawing,ed) that are ...

Having both and being neither looks a little funny. MX44 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not some Scandinavian invention, look here:
http://www.utoronto.ca/ucwriting/quotations.html
If you need to alter or replace text from the original, enclose the added text within square brackets. You may, for example, need to alter text to ensure that pronouns agree with their antecedents. Do not write,
  • Gertrude asks her son Hamlet to "cast your nighted colour off" (1.2.68).
Square brackets allow you to absorb Gertrude's words into your own statement:
  • Gertrude asks her son Hamlet to "cast [his] nighted colour off" (1.2.68).
The text we need to alter here is the unqualified "it".
MX44 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a clarifier. A clarifier would have been:
  • There are interpretations of the bomb [KW's drawing] that are ...
MX44 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redicule

One of the sub-headings in the translation of Fleming Rose's center piece article says "Redicule." This is close, but not an excact match. I would like to invent something like "The rediculi[s|z]ation", but am uncertain that this construct would be proper english.

What should be described is the process of rediculing something. Suggestions? MX44 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The word stultification might be what it is. Mentioned as second alternative in my dictionary, and also used in this context:

Canada Free Press, Canada - Jun 10, 2006
... by the Bush administration, had they but taken his wise counsel, so often and painfully offered, would have resulted in the stultification of radical Islam ...

MX44 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Ahh! (slaps forehead ...) The word redicule is both a verb and a noun:

  • To ridicule [something]
  • The ridicule [of something]

Most of the the time we do not realize this. We just follow the flow in the text we are reading. It is only when the word stands alone (without a qualifying "to" or "the") that it gets ambiguos. As if the author perhaps meant to order: Redicule!!

Solution: The Ridicule (with capital 'R' as in "The Internet.")

MX44 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Redicule isn't English, Ridicule is. (→Netscott) 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Now give me a break, will you! BTW, your fancy new signature is getting in the way. Too many junk letters in edit mode :-/ MX44 14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The word used as caption is "Latterliggørelsen." If we decompose it to its atomic parts, we get:

  • Latter-lig-gøre-[ls]-en
  • Laughfter-like-do-[?]-"the"

MX44 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry but what is the entire caption...? I'm having difficulty following the word logic. (→Netscott) 14:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A single word ([The] Redicule). This is the reason it gets ambigous. MX44 14:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Such ridicule!!! ridicule is the base word for ridiculous! One of the ways this word is used is thus, "MX44's displaying of the Chewbaca defense userbox made him a target for ridicule." (→Netscott) 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Your signature is getting longer than your comments :-D MX44 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Anyways ... I am at the sub-article of the imams dossier. I have corrected some false dates of when various JP articles were issued. (We are only quoting from excactly one issue)

You asked me before if we have the original JP-article? I gave you a personal copy ...

Here is the dictionary to go with it:

http://danish.nigilist.ru/

>;->=MX44 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See the "personal attack" section below for a pertinent question. (→Netscott) 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia at 3rd Opinion

Islamophobia was listed at WP:3O back in March, regarding the use of the term within the article. There doesn't seem to be any recent discussion on this on the talk page; is this issue still ongoing, or can the request be removed? Kafziel 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I was looking at the wrong listing. I'll comment at the article's talk page. Kafziel 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do, particularly in the Quoting "islamophobia" section. Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Converts to Islam

Hi Scott! Long time, No see!!! I am LOL ;) I am not delisting stuff blindly, c'mon mate.

  • Michael Young entry in WP got nothing to do w/ this (2 diff people). The guy is a British sociologist, social activist and politician and nothing to do w/ the writer of the article.
  • Edip Yuksel of Turkey from Sunni radicalism to monotheism [18]. (The guy was born Muslim anyway!!! Does changing his path from Sunni radicalism to monotheism mean converting? Nonsense.
  • Andrew Rowe entry in WP got nothing to do w/ this (2 diff people). The guy is an old Conservative Party Member of Parliament in the UK and not a young terrorist! -- Szvest 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Already responded too... I was saying blindly as in, did you check the linked articles? But I actually understood your logic afterwards. (→Netscott) 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
NP mate. The list needs a cleanup anyway. It needs time. Have a look at List of Andalusians. It's pretty neat. I'll delve into that when i'd have enough time. -- Szvest 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a big deal ;) -- Szvest 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You weren't stepping on anyone's toes especially mines. Theproof is:

Welcome to my WikiLab. Just  Wiki me up™and correct me if I am wrong.

[edit] Personal Attack

Please remove your personal attack otherwise I will report you to Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Raphael1 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you make a report be sure to use this diff with my complete comments. I stand by what I have posted. (→Netscott) 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Your wish is my command.[19] Raphael1 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your warning Raphael1 and I also understand your reporting of my comments (silly as that may be given the wording on the WP:PAIN page specifically says, "If the behavior hasn't stopped, add the following header ... ". You want to know something funny? Given the muted reponse of Irishpunktom I'm inclined to think that he agrees with what I said. In accord with my statements and based upon what I have witnessed I would say that the total sum of your "contributions" to Wikipedia have added up to be a net negative.... primarily due to the time lost by fellow editors who are forced to deal with your shortcomings in terms of understanding logic and the insistence you bring to bear on your edits almost regardless of demonstrations that your logic is false. Not to mention all of the time folks have lost dealing with your obsession on the cartoons issue.Irispunktom may be difficult to co-edit with but one can be fairly sure he knows wtf he is doing and is not clueless and does what he does with intention. The same cannot be said on your behalf. Despite your disagreeing with his statements, User:Azate was extremely correct in his estimation of your character. Now if you would only follow his advice and try to tip the balance of the total sum of your contributions from being negative to being positive that would be great for the Wikipedia project.(→Netscott) 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest not having contact with this user for awhile so you can calm down a bit. I know you usually aren't the personal attack type. So I'm treating this as an abnormal occurance. But please be careful. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes.See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1 - it's pretty clear who is the problem editor here.You know what they say about arguing wiht idiots - after a while it becomes hard to tell the difference. Leave Raphael1 to his - well, whatever it is that motivates him.Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

MX44, which is more applicable in terms of this discussion here, psyk or stærkere? (→Netscott) 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some fifty years ago, in Denmark, it was fashioned to send anybody that could potentionally pose a threath to society by their behaviour, to an asylum. We do not do that enymore. MX44 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe skældsord then? (→Netscott) 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ehh ... You will have to ask some minimal (well-formed) kind of question before I can even approach at an answer (and no, the junk above isn't excactly cutting it! MX44 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
Yes in my questions... think in terms of who those words might apply to. (→Netscott) 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, do the walk and formalize the question, thankyou! MX44 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that's no fun. If in the context of this discussion you're not "getting" my question then I'll just let it go. (→Netscott) 17:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhm ... You can tell me in an e-mail or you can say here. What it is the problem? Perhapsthe process of composing an e-mail would be good for you? MX44 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I am sick and tired of baby-sitting Raphael1 (and Strider, ... and whatnot!) MX44 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom case

Seeing as you've been aware and informed on the various problems in the Islam articles involving Timothy Usher, Merzbow, Pecher and myself, I'd ask that you participate in this latest cherade: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 His Excellency... 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've been unblocked again (amazingly imho) so there's a chance this case'll go on. Honestly though, your words were very brutal on the above request for arbitration. The fact that you've been unblocked inclines me to think that the community wants to do its best to hear your concerns. I'm not quite sure how this'll proceed but I recommend that you start building a case by finding evidence that correlates with your concerns. (→Netscott) 18:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It surprised even me, actually. I don't have the time to organize a case and defend myself, particularly if it's me against 3 (or more) other users. That'd be 3 edit histories to sift through, about 3 or 4 different pages to find my evidences of bias in, and of course, my account history and every exchange between myself and...Bah! The extent to which I was already involved on Wikipedia was more stressful than any internet activity should be. Adding an arbcomm prosecution would make it totally unreasonable for me to participate at all, regardless of the likely outcome. When I saw the arbcomm case request, at first I felt panic. I was already burned out with the work on these pages and the looming edit wars. I was pretty damned happy with the idea of a year long block. Sure articles would portray Islam as an evil religion and Muhammad as a monster and all, but it wouldn't be my problem. I did my best and I can't do more.
Anyway, Raul654 said my unblock was contingent on my calming down. If that's all I need to do, I'll voluntarily stop editing Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam, and certainly end exchanges with the users I've had a conflict with. There are other articles here on Islam that so far haven't attracted attacks, maybe I can expand them. So far there are no Bat Ye'ors ripping down on Islamic art. IF the Arbcomm case resumes, I'll simply play a Saddam Hussein and not appear at the docket. I don't have time for a lengthy process, and the time and effort it would consume wouldn't be worth the benefit of staying here. If I can suggest my own punishment, it'd be that I be banned, for a year or whatever, on the pages the conflicts rise from: Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. His Excellency... 19:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly think your concerns are valid and should be heard and addressed as necessary but as I haven't been as involved in the whole situation at the levels you have it's difficult for me to envision championing such concerns (as you've indicated you'd like me to do). It's a pity that you become so riled up... I know how that is though as I too have a tendency to become riled up but I believe I have a stronger capacity to maintain my behavior despite entering into such a psychological state. Given the fact that despite your latest demonstrations of incivility you've been unblocked I think Wikipedia is inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and enable you to do what is right and make efforts towards exposing biases so that necessary article changes/policy changes can be effected. I agree with sentiments that you expressed regarding non-muslims in that it is difficult for others to "latch on" to your contentions if they aren't educated in the ways of Muslim life (deen) and thinking and sooner have a emotionally detached view in such a regard. This is why I was trying to stress upon you the need to make your case and in a sense "win over" others to how you view things, (this is directly attached to the ignorance bit I was previously mentioning). As far as your idea to focus more on articles that are less contentious, such a policy is likely good for your stress level. I would recommend that you encourage those you know who are educated about Islam and the Muslim way of life to come and contribute to Wikipedia in efforts towards bringing the articles more into line with a neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

... for your informative note on WP:PAIN, I hope it doesn't make anybody choke on their coffee. Well, I can't say I really care if it does. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Well, it looks like at least one person has taken a stand on what type of behavior they approve of on this project. - Merzbow 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Reviewing the material that is in that section one more time, I actually agree that it should be in it's previous place. I have moved it back already. -- Karl Meier 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy that you agree with most of my recent efforts there

. Another thing is that I don't know if you actually noticed the anon that was making a nonsens-revert of one of your latest edits on that article: [20]. Looking at his diffs, I believe it's the same guy that was trolling against me the other day, because of my editing in the Armenian Genocide article which he disagreed with. I don't know if he really want's to target your edits also, or if it was just some mistake that he made, because he was in a hurry making a lot of reverts... In any case I just thought I should mention it to you. -- Karl Meier 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you get that impression. Fact is that Irishpunktom returned to the article today, and all he did was to undue and oppose lot of my edits from yesterday. It's not like it's the other way around.-- Karl Meier 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
He reverted me. I don't know why you see that as particularly respectful. Also, I am sure that you are aware that I haven't reverted his revert yet. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I cut the "..and use of the term" from the sections title, as we already have a section that cover these issues (the "Use in public discourse" section). The material that I removed from that section was then moved to the relevant subsections under the "Use in public discourse" header. Another thing is that I actually did write an edit summary, when I made those changes: "move content away from this section. We already have a section regarding the use of the term". -- Karl Meier 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good sign?

You noticed that in real-time? That's kind of impressive. But to answer your question: Yesandno. I'll not return to editing anything remotely political, islamic or turkish. I think the effort-result ratio is too poor there to do this for anything but mental gymnastics or deep conviction. But I'm thinking about adding to and starting a few articles about famous watercraft (esp. sail boats) and naval architecture. Thanks for you kind inquiry. Azate 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of converts to Islam

Dearest Sir, What do you propose the bestest way of dealing with the situation would be?The list of "Islam converts who have committed crimes" makes little sense, and given that no such lists exist for other religions (as noted in the article discussion), there's little doubt that the list was created with racist motives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.229.211 (talk • contribs) .

Correction: The list is not racist as such but is belittetrin Islam. MX44 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thank you for seeing the problem and trying to help me with a program. By the time your comments came in, though, I was in tears. I noticed that you reverted your comments so that they weren't yelling on my screen. I appreciate that, and I know that you did so purposely. I have decided to just use e-mail and have left a notice on my talk page to that effect. Thanks again. Ste4k 11:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Now i know how to creat articles that last :) --Striver 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Barnstar moved to my user page.

  • Thanks Karl, that's appreciated. :-) (→Netscott) 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hei..

Being pretty busy lately and sorry for not being much of a help with the new templates. --Oblivious 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A useful hint

Have I got a neat link for you! Full access (well, almost) to the Encyclopaedia of Islam (the new edition), the ultimate reference work in the field. Use this as a source, and anybody who screams "bias" or "unreliable" is just making a fool of himself. First you need special fonts. Get 'em here: for Windows[21] or Mac[22]. Install them. Then, proceed here for a good place to start: You can't search the EI2, but you can surf it, link to link, until you reach the article you need. Bookmark several key pages with lots of useful links in them, and, assuming that you have basic knowledge of the subject and a little patience and ingenuity, it never takes more than 4 or 5 clicks to any obscure target. No more stupid trips to the library to look at the EI2! Enjoy, hope this back door lasts, spread the word, and save $250 while doing so! Azate 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on the User:Porky Pig situation

Just a suggestion, for the future.If you are in the middle of a heated debate with someone, it's probably not a great idea to go correcting policy violations on their user page yourself.The other user is not likely to respond well to having someone with whom they are arguing suddenly appear at his user page and start removing images, as you did.No matter whether you had policy behind you or not, doing that to his user page was very likely to inflame the situation between the two of you, which is exactly what happened.You would have been much better off getting a neutral 3rd party to handle the fair use image situation, given the ongoing situation between the two of you.In the end, while your actions had plicy behind them, you should really not have been the one to enforce that policy, IMHO.Just my view of the situation. - TexasAndroid 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TexasAndroid, I appreciate your comments however there was no "heated debate" just simple discussion. I will bear your council in mind though for when I do become involved in "heated debates" in the future. Thanks. (→Netscott) 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty well convinced.One key factor though, that differentiates this from other cases is that in this case, he was only blocked for this long because he asked for his account to be closed.He was blocked for a week, threw a fit over it, and asked for his account to be closed.And it effectively was closed by being blocked off.But unlike others like Zephram Stark, he's not really a "banned" user.Unless he had other currently unknown socks, he was away from the project for a bit over a month, well over the original one week block.So in general, it's hard for me to justify blocking off the PPig account, given that the only block he's "evading" is one that was effectively leveled at his own request. - TexasAndroid 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SirIsaacBrock sockpuppet

No problem. :-) -- Karl Meier 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:SirIsaacBrock=User:Porky Pig

...and, I've replied. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, up until that last diff, I was not convinced; similarities, sure, but enough doubt to wonder if perhaps you weren't biting. Thanks for keeping on it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on User:Porky Pig

Please stop doing this.I don't want to have to start blocking people. I've also warned Porky Pig to stop vandalizing in retaliation and warned him that he can be blocked for it.I hope you can all call a halt to this silliness without being made to stand in the corner like naughty children. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the question is, which version of the page do you think it should be frozen at when the "silliness" comes to an end?There is a suspicion that PorkyPig is a sockpuppet of SirIsaacBrock.Check the complaint yourself, and you'll see that several editors are so far in agreement with Netscott.Note that 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism.I would personally consider PorkyPig's removal of tags from his userpage to be vandalism.Of course, you may disagree.Cheers, Kasreyn 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been off line, and am still sorting out some hardware issues, but it looks like this is resolved now. Nice job on laying out the evidence for puppetry, it was thorough, easy to follow, and convincing. Tom Harrison Talk 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SirIsaacBrock

Hello, just thought I would drop you a line and touch base.I am looking forward to dealing with in the future.Cordially SirIsaacBrock 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely chose the wrong person to call an anti-semite and personally attack in other sundry ways. In this light I too look forward to helping to reveal the long-term disruptive nature of your editing on the Wikipedia project towards helping to improve the project's collaborative environment. Cordially. (→Netscott) 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Basing statements on facts is allowed at the wiki.Take care SirIsaacBrock 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you need, you contact me, Netscott. My email is active but I only check it off-hours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullbaiting

From looking at the other images that editor has uploaded it does seem he has a nice collection on that topic. But it could indeed be a copyvio, since the picture seems to be taken by someone spanish (?) in 2000, and the uploaders is canadian. I don't know, I couldn't find the image on the net (except the wikipedia one). Normally I would say that it's best to ask the uploader about it but from looking at his history and yours that might be difficult. :) Otherwise just report it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. But I think you already know that page, I thought I saw your name there one time. I will look at the flags tomorrow. It's late here... Garion96 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it and left a message on his talk. Will check other images later. Garion96 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thankyou

WP:NCR History (I hope it works).Ive been doing some more WP:NCR pictures, could you look them over so as they "pass" and Im not wasting time on them. Thankyou again for your advice and help, it is invaluable to me. Dfrg.msc 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Would you please help in writing this article ? Thanks.--Welondekaw11:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing my page. About the edit to Muhammad, check the user's contributions. It looks like wiki spam to me, but not so much so that I've reverted him wholesale. Tom Harrison Talk 22:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Instead of making more derogatory comments you are welcome to help finding a consensus at the Lance Armstrong talk page. By the way, interesting that you do own your talk page. Socafan 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory?
Socafan, you've got no case to go before ArbCom. My counsel to you is use the time you might waste in trying to utilize ArbCom on a case without merit to actually improve the project. You've now had User:Theresa knott, User:JzG,User:Tom harrison, User:JesseW and myself all opposing your editing on Lance Armstrong. Does that not tell you something? (→Netscott) 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know where you see User:Theresa knott and User:JesseW opposing my edits. If you have any complaints, make them at the appropriate article talk page. Removing factual and sourced information and blocking others while in a conflict of interest is unacceptable. As are derogatory comments as the one I linked above. Under any circumstances. Furthermore, your blanking of my comment on your talk page while I get blocked for removing yours after telling you repeatedly to discuss at the article talk page and not at mine shows double standards. Keep off my talk page and discuss at the article talk page in case you have anything important, which up to now you failed to present. Socafan 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Negative/hostile attitude
Socafan, please know that if you maintain your current hostile attitude you are going to encounter greater and greater difficulties as an editor on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not evade my questions, do not make unsubstantiated allegations, start to work productively on the article and keep off my talk page unless, see above. Socafan 23:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk page etiquette
It is normal for me to respond to your posting on my talk page by posting on your talk page. Your insistence that I do not is illogical and were it not for the fact that you indeed are posting on my talk page I would not post on your own because doing so is considered harassment. If you sincerely do not want me to post on your talk page then I suggest you make that request here in response to this post and cease deleting my messages to you here. Failure to abide by this counsel (and subsequently posting to my talk page) will see more messages from me here. I deleted your message on my talk page because it was logical to do so when you were trying to argue that I should not be posting to your talk page but on the article talk page (in the very message you transfered to my talk page). The behavior you are demonstrating makes it very easy for administrators to be inclined to block you as it is disruptive. As far as User:Theresa knott agreeing with User:JzG look at your user page and as for User:JesseW see User_talk:JzG#Good_work_on_User:Socafan. (→Netscott) 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not ok if you respond at my user talk page after I have repeatedly asked you to discuss article issues at the article talk page. As you made repetitive and unsubstantiated allegations I asked you to keep off my page. I am entitled to delete talk from my page that I do not regard necessary unless it is a warning by an admin. Many users, including you, do so. Lecturing someone about logic in a condescending tone is incivil. Theresa as well as JesseW have not contributed to the article discussion page, and as long as you and JzG continue to refuse to do so while continuing to harrass me I see your behaviour as disruptive. Socafan 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC) PS: I find it very confusing to read discussions that are spread over more than one page, so I prefer to copy and paste talk to the user I am discussing with.
This discussion is not about articles... so please refrain from saying "discuss articles at article talk space". Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As you may remember, the discussion is because of the Lance Armstrong article. Please discuss there instead of making unsubstantiated allegations at my talk page, which will be removed. Socafan 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is about the possiblity of you filing an ArbCom case and is tangentially is related to the Lance Armstrong article. Simple logic shows this to be true, does it not? (→Netscott) 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The case has already been filed, if you want to discuss that I again invite you to discuss where appropriate and to stop pretending you own my page. Thank you so much and have a nice day. Any further misplaced messages will be deleted without comment because they are just harrassment. Socafan 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Theresa knott, save for your effort to defuse the situation User:JzG's warning made sense in light of User:Azmoc's own warning placed on User:Zoe's user page. (→Netscott) 14:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This too was a hot-headed warning. I wouldn't object if Zoe removed it, I have removed it myself. However, I was not uncivil, I was paraphrasing what Zoe said and using his/her argument as an example for my proposal. Plus the original reason for my warning has been long before removed, Zoe left his/her personal attack untouched. Azmoc 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result of SirIsaacBrock RfCU

It appears that Essjay has denied your checkuser request.He says to take it to ArbComm.Please notify me when you do & I will provide my support before ArbComm.I for one am convinced SIB was puppeteering.Take care, Kasreyn 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked, but what about his socks?Has it been established to the satisfaction of the admins that his socks are confirmed and blocked, or is he free to edit through them?I feel SIB is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who has worn out his welcome here entirely.I'm concerned that he might return with a sock.It's best that we get it on the record now that he's a confirmed sockpuppeteer, so that the next time he makes a sock we don't have to argue the whole case all over again.Cheers, Kasreyn 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong

I've only seen one reversion since I unprotected - I'm going to hold off, because protected pages are bad, and because it's in my experience easier to come to a long term solution while articles are unprotected. Phil Sandifer 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping me regarding the harassment from that anon. -- Karl Meier 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe

Somebody should have reminded him/her to stop yawning about "yet another" editors comments. If I made that edit, somebody would tell me to mind the rules about civility and NPA, but in his/her case nobody did, because he/she is an admin. I don't find my anti-award that bad to call it trolling, and it is not intended to disrupt an ongoing discussion, so it could hardly classify for one. Anyway, thank you for the reminder you have left on my talk page, I appreciate your effort to solve this and I will try not to do something like that again. Azmoc 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On this point ...

... we found a cite, so it's not really original research, I don't think.

At issue is a matter of interpretation of French law. What you use to determine what is or isn't a "religious display" is irrelevant compared to what French legislators and courts consider to be a "religious display," yes?

Do keep that Qur'an in hand, though!

)

BYT 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socafan

See User:JzG/LA.I think there is more below the surface. Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My history

I have a brief history on WP of 3 months, of that 2 months quite busy in real world, 1 month heavy editing, creating 3 brand new medical articles, 2 of them quite big, heavily sourced (I even borrowedbooks from the library), participation on the wikiproject clinical medicine, co-editing numerous other articles, uploading 2 illustrations I made and 1 block for a hot headed discussion about the process of RfA. The policy says, that blocks are not punitive, but preventive and in case of uncivility, they should only be used in extreme cases. My case was not extreme at all. Admins just block if they don't like something, regardless of the policy. After I checked the AN/I, I found that I was being called "peevish person", "someone trying to be clever" etc. and the admin who said that was not reminded that he/she should remain civil even at the AN/I. My request for unblock was denied with the reason "stop discussing how we run wikipedia, YOU haven't had mainspace edits in months", I re-requested the unblock, listed the articles I created or have rewritten heavily in the previous month, and, quite naturally called the admin "blind or stupid". He said sorry, I was quite sure you didn't have any mainspace edits, now I see I was wrong, but calling me "blind or stupid" is a personal attack, unblock still denied. I still believe he deserved that personal attack for not actually checking my contributions and mocking my efforts on WP, this too is a personal attack and you are not allowed to return them here, especially to admins. I decided I will not contribute to WP anymore, this community doesn't deserve my efforts, I have just come back to check a straw poll I started before I decided to vanish, and I have written the proposal at the village pump. You don't need to know my previous nickname, as I don't want to edit any articles anymore. It takes a lot of your time and once you say something the admins don't like, you get blocked. Clear? Azmoc 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sombody emailed me about this[23] discussion here, because of the sockpuppet suspicions against Azmoc, and because he was unsure if it was me (obvious similarities in username). So, for the record: it's not me! If I wanted a sockpuppet, I'd pick a less obvious name... Azate 04:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is actually Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Just zis Guy you know? 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion

Really, I would like to hear your opinion on this. These two people have a content dispute. The admin one reverts and protects. He doesn't want to be in arbitration, but want people to comment on his opponent. What do you think he wants? Bann the opponent, right? Azmoc 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I stop. Azmoc 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Citing of negative information on biographies

Please see my comments on Talk:Santiago Botero. I'm not sure why you posted those policies to me on my talk. I think my edits were helpful, notable, verifiable, and not libelous nor "negative information". I can understand if a POV warrior is going around calling riders cheats that haven't been proven, being totally unappropriate (and worthy of rv), but once again, I want to make it clear that I do not see myself as that, and feel my edits were helpful. If I am missing something, I apologize and would like to hear you out. Please join the discussion on the Botero talk page. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I totally understand now. Forgive me for being a little defensive.--Andrew c 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ED article deletion

Hi, could you fix the tag for the ED article deletion?Also, it's the third try, not the second.Karwynn (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What language is als:

Alemannisch. Kotepho 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

als is taken from Alsatian language, though, I believe. Circeus 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

This has to be one of the most entertaining AfD's I've seen in a long time. I'd say thanks but I suspect no matter what way it goes it will be over at DrV before long. *shrug* Whispering 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My IP info

Thank you for that. Oh, and methinks you should archive your user talk about now. 91 kb is rather large. 71.112.141.236 04:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kind Words on ED

Hey, thanks for the note. If I seemed to flame you yourself at any point (I really can't recall) sorry--your reasons for deletion were grounded I think in what you believe are honest faults with the article itself, I have no problem with you. I think I accused you of bad faith or being a hairy troglodyte that likes disco, or something ridiculous, when the article first went up for deletion. We're fine as far as I'm concerned on this side. Actually, as you're a pretty stringent (but fair) editor, could I persuade you to take a cruising pass at, or at least leave me a note of your thoughts on, my project? Timeline of Internet conflicts. I think searching for stuff related to this is actually how I found the ED mess, in hindsight. I'd stumbled across the 4chan Habbo Hotel raid fiasco/quest to keep that out of the Habbo article, which led to the Bantown mess, which led to the ED mess... I think. It was that, or thereabouts.

For what its worth, my notes on what I envision the growth of that page as/scope is on the talk page. Basically a factual chronology of the online conflicts that shape the internet and its growth, ala how someone may do a break down of real world physical wars (which I actually would like to do after as a project if it hasn't been). Anywho, let me know what you think if you get a chance. rootology 23:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop edit warring on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

This is addressed simultaneously to Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) and Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu).

Guys, please stop edit warring over this deletion discussion.If someone adds a comment to an AfD, it's not a good idea to remove it and you can be blocked for doing so. As you're both warring, I would consider blocking both of you should you continue. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my last (and final) comment

I readded it in your cut section, you I assume forgot to put it back in? I want that in there and it needs to stay in the collapsable section. My link to that guardian article is the only clear logical breakdown of it all. And Hardvice is right--95% of the people AREN'T gonna look at the talk page. Please don't remove that section that links back to talk, it has to stay. Thanks! I'll compromise and leave it in the expandable section however... rootology 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry! I cleaned it up. Serves me right for working on anything beyond getting into bed when I was half dead... rootology 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Civility warning

Please remain from posting uncivil comments on Wikipedia as you have been doing on WP:ANI. thanks. (→Netscott) 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Being racist, handicappist bigots, is not civil.

Additionally, it's not ethical.

& it's, in light of claimed ethics, therefore hypocritical.

I've asked you to revive my page dealing w/ the wikiracism.

Instead, you delete most of what I write.

Oh, yeah, that's "plural 'you'".

Whether it's also singular, I don't know.So, that makes wiki the troll, if my description is accurate.&, I do contend that it is.I would not make this effort to make wiki worse, despite it's snide tendencies.The extent to which I'm snide is to diminish racism.

It is obvious that I'm the only one contending this; but, others who feel this way, may have merely given-up.

Or they may have done what I had, which is ignore it for years, until I could no longer accept it.

Hopiakuta 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are these edits out of order, or is it me

Hi Netscott

A further problem on the Dhimmi page. Irishpunktom added gentile to the See Also list. It has been reverted several times now, probably in breach of 3RR rule. I argued in favour of it staying, alongside pagan and kafir which others added. Grenavitar also put reasoned arguments for it to stay. A new editor, Levito, had a longwinded spat with Hypnosadist about it. I argued again for it to stay and also for a sense of proportion [24]. Leifern's latest removal [25] calls it "antisemitic". At the same time an unsigned comment [26], which I assume is Leifern, says it is similar to him putting a link to antisemite on my talk page. I read this as an insinuation that I have been antisemitic. I said I would consult an admin about what action I should take. [27] If you could take a look and/or advise me about where else I should go, I would be much obliged. I have been civil throughout. I am also trying to concentrate on working with the sources rather than on spats like this.Itsmejudith 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Leifern has said that the unsigned comment was not his, and I have apologised for accusing him.Itsmejudith 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
But now he admits it was his. I have asked him just to say he was not accusing me of being antisemitic. The See Alsos are being constantly reverted and I have asked for page protection so that people can calm down. Itsmejudith 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not accused Itsmejudith or anyone else of being antisemitic, and I resent the charge. But it is telling that Itsmejudith made that inference, since my point was precisely that such an association would (rightly) be resentful, also in the disputed article. --Leifern 18:14, 24 July

2006 (UTC)

Page is now protected and peace has broken out. Leifern has clarified that he did not intend an accusation of anti-semitism and has made a compromise suggestion to the See Also, others have too, and we are discussing politely. Wonder how long it will last?Itsmejudith 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopiakuta 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I'm confused; you have:

"Contentious editing

"Do you believe you have a valid point of contention about my edits and would like the whole world to know it the moment they come to my user page?

"Here's your chance!

"If you can competently argue for why any of my edits are less than valid and you feel a need to vent, please first post something bordering on insult about my edit,..."

Please, more clearly: Where??

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long and short of it in one parameter

I like Template:Tnavbar and would like to see what you think of these changes, as you seem one of the main authors.


I would like to change this

This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>] • [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">edit</span>]</div>


To this



{{#if:{{{long|}}}|

This box: [{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="View this template.">view</span>]


· <nowiki>[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="Discussion about this template.">talk</span>]

·

[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit]

</nowiki>

|

[{{fullurl:Template_talk:{{{1}}}}} d]</nowiki>

·

[{{fullurl:Template:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} <span style="color:#002bb8;" title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">e</span>]</div> }}

Basically include a long parameter and then start to combine some of the templates.Would if be possible to have a div or nodiv parameter as well? As this is a big change I though I would be bold in suggesting it and cautious in applying it. (I posted this on Template talk:Tnavbar as well)Rex the first talk | contribs 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Please cease edit warring and provide some cites for your claim that "Islamophobia" has no agreed definition. That's just plain silly, and I'd like to see some cites for it. Deuterium 10:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this might amuse you (at my expense). --Coroebus 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson's photo

Hi!I read through [28], though I'm not certain which aspect comes into play here.I objected to the photo because it is placed as the centerpiece of the bio, essentially furnishing an implicit commentary that Mr. Gibson's drunken evening is the centerpiece of his career.

A lot of people will be coming to Wikipedia for the first time to this article, and I'm concerned that this photograph will give them the impression that Wikipedia is less serious than it actually is:why not find drunken photos of other celebrities as well, when it suits us to criticize them?

You don't have to convince me that the Lethal Weapon 4 photo is unacceptable, I'm certain you're correct about that; but why this photo?Why not some more even-handed alternative?DBaba 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Netscott! Not trying to make noise, just trying to make the article more interesting. The free use image does not depict his achievements that led him to fame; like, he is more famous for his movies than for drunk driving. So I put a promotional image. Just trying to improve. Please let me know.

I wonder is this policy widely applied? Example: Hugh Grant article.

Greetings and thanks!

Stellatomailing 22:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is the image I uploaded now viable to use, or is it still superceded by the aforementioned 'free image'.I wouldn't like to upload it and have to have it removed again on some technicality.Cheers.--Koncorde 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This admin lies

I recently added an image from The Patriot (2000 film) in the Mel Gibson article, and this guy removes it, saying it belongs only in the article for the 2000 movie. He then proceeds to through a "policy" up in my face, so I then read it. It turns out, nothing in there says that I can't put that image of Mel Gibson from a movie so long as it is relevant. So it turns out this guy lies to get what he wants. Go and read the policy again netscott... then come back to me and apologize...i might not report youKaratenerd 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy, is this how you react everytime you are proven wrong? Why not make a mature response to me proving you wrong? Also, freak-head reverted my edit because the image had been deleted do to lack of source, not because I was trying to break rules. People like you need your admin rights revoked. How about responding to what I said about the policy? I read it, and found I wasn't breaking any rule. So what else do you have? Oh, why don't you go look at the Amanda Bynes article and remove that image. Why not? Waiting for a mature response, not "ARGGHHH im gonna block you" response. Karatenerd 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you only removed the Mel Gibson image and not the Amanda Bynes image is a big indication that you did it because you personally don't like Mel Gibson and used a vague reference to a policy to support your actions. I see tons of pictures on articles for film actors/actresses where a screenshot from the film is used as their bio headshot. But whatever. You are a prime example of admins abusing their (little amount of) power. good day Karatenerd 20:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson image

Image:IMG_3006_crop.jpg claims to be in the public domain, both the original uncropped version and the cropped version. Assuming this to be accurate, I think you may have removed the image from Mel Gibson in error. I have restored the image, but feel I may be missing some intricacy here... if this is the case, please could you drop a note on the image talk page explaining what's going on? Lupin|talk|popups 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please could you take a moment to explain why there's a no source template but there is also a source on the image page? Lupin|talk|popups 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Lupin|talk|popups 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this. If you're right and the image needs to go, taking a few more hours to let other editors become aware of the situation and add their support will only benefit you — but continuing a revert war well past three reverts is disruptive. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 07:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Netscott, Do you have any feedback here[29]? we are trying to write a mannual of style for Islam related articles. Thanks --Aminz 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More copyright images

Hi Netscott. I believe you are concerned about the use of copyright images. I wondered if you could have a look, when you have time, at the images in New Anti-semitism, uploaded by User: Slimvirgin, which appear to be copyright. In at least two cases there is an acknowledgement that they are copyright, but a claim, unsubstantiated, that they are of no commercial value and the briefest of justifications for their use. In one case there is no way of seeing who the copyright holder is. But I am not very familiar with the policies on copyright images. Thanks. (BTW I'll be on wikibreak from tomorrow to early September.)Itsmejudith 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. It's got a bit contentious. See discussion on Talk: New anti-Semitism. Itsmejudith 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's gotten "a bit contentious" only in the sense that SlimVirgin has gone ahead and gotten a GFDL release for a picture, and in turn you have questioned her veracity. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you look in the deletion logs, Netscott did the same thing with an image I uploaded, Image:IMG_3006 crop.jpg, doubting that it was really public domain. This is equivalent to deleting every contribution to Wikipedia ever made (text and images) because, well, you can’t know for sure the contributor didn’t rip it off some copyrighted source. The absurdity would be laughable, except that Netscott seems to be suceeding in his crusade against good-faith contributions.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you tormenting me?

Can I please upload to wikipedia without you butchering every attempt for me to do so? It seems you are only concerned with keeping Mel Gibson photos off of wikipedia. I gave my fair use rationale, i provided the source, I provided liscensing information, I frankly don't know what the hell you want from me. You very much seem like you are being biased and are abusing your "power". You give no reason for listing it as being considered for deletion. SO... I just added copyright info to the image. The copyright is owned by Touchstone Pictures in 2002. What else is there wrong???? Your confusing me... How is this image not fair use????Karatenerd 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the justification for your bias. Now let me explain mine. If you observe this image of Keanu Reeves Here you will notice it has the same copyright tag and is used for the same purpose. But it is also used in the page for the film. So I found a little loop-hole. I'm gonna add this image to the Signs page and then you are going to leave me alone. You seem to be keeping an eye on the Mel Gibson page and any image I upload or use. You are a clearly biased admin!Karatenerd 03:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disengage

I've asked him to go do his thing and suggest you do the same...in a couple days, it'll be like water under the bridge if you two just avoid each other. I doubt he'll recreate a similar subpage again if you two just walk away...then everyone wins...Best wishes.--MONGO 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPBiography

Hello, I see you're trying to add the blp tag... there's 3 columns so I don't know if that helps. I didn't know you could include one template inside another. I know we can include other pages, so maybe we should take the BLP text and put it on a page instead? As of right now, the disclaimer isn't showing plange 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, yep, we've been trying to keep it current, but this is better, however, it appears that it's lost the <includeonly>[[Category:Biography articles of living persons|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> code...plange 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the image still being considered?

There is nothing to discuss. The image is fair use and all necessary information such as copyright, source, liscense information, and fair use rationale are provided. This makes your efforts futile and pointless and you will feel the wrath of common sense comming crashing down on you HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAKaratenerd 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

As you may or may not know, enforcement of the standards outlined WP:BLP provide immunity to WP:3RR for removing poorly sourced material. Thanks. --Paul E. Ester 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Islamofascism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Islamofascism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You've removed the 10 August 2006 Bush quote now 3 times in less than 24 h, [30] [31] [32], please refrain from edit-warring. --Francis Schonken 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)