User talk:Netscott/Archive-07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian

---

Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.

---

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

---

[edit] A proposal towards a "new message" joke box guideline

Hello David, I'd like to try and help formulate a guideline about discouraging (rather than outright banning) the usage of the "new message" practical joke code. I've been doing some more research on this and gaining a better perspective about the banner thing. One of the first things that needs to be absolutely mandated in no uncertain terms is that if a user is going to use a joke banner despite the guideline's discouragement then it cannot link to anything off Wikimedia servers. Along with that mandate the joke banners can't link to "shock pages" etc. I agree that there are some very valid concerns about the potential for the boxes being abused and in view of that I also agree that regardless of consensus for the existence of them on user pages there are common sense ground rules that should be in effect. What do you think? (→Netscott) 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the jokes in question are disruptive should be formally disallowed. If this does not occur, I support the adoption of something along the lines of the above. —David Levy 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand that you hold that view but in the meantime (until we get word from Jimbo or the ArbCom) I believe that something should be in place. I am concerned now about banners linking to offwiki sites. (→Netscott) 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that this likely would take longer to establish than it will take for Jimbo to issue a definitive statement on the matter. (And I'm fairly certain from our correspondence that all of the above will be covered.) This is not problematic in and of itself, but I worry that the related discussion would be needlessly contentious.

Nonetheless, I shall support such a proposal if one is made. —David Levy 04:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snackycakes

Netscott, it disturbs me to no end that you "haven't even heard of...(me)...in over two years of editing Wikipedia." I had no idea that making an impression on you was an important part of contributing. Or that it was even desirable. Or anything - because oddly enough, I've never even heard of you either. Wow. How'd I manage that?

[edit] Civility

Honestly, I think the phrasing that I am using toward them is quite perfect and sometimes questions and statements need to be phrased in a hard manner. It's obvious that they are going to try to do "what they want" in any case, which is making me lose the good faith here. I don't know if you use IRC, but I would like to discuss this with you more in-depth privately on freenode. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're in America you can Skype-dial my cell phone number. I can email it to you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to be a major bitch about it, but I don't horribly have the time to wait for e-mails and such. I'm doing things around the house and sometimes I'll want to chain-smoke a few cigarettes...I can't bring my desktop computer outside with me while I do that, but I can definitely do that with a cell phone. Unless you aren't aware of the privacy features with Skype, it comes up as "Private Call" when you call a cell phone via Skype. Since you have Skype, you can definitely do that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mugshot

Hi Netscott. I just left you a message on your commons talk page. If I'd though ahead, I would have just left it here, but oh well. Best ×Meegs 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submitted

I am happy with one thing that you truly understand the meaning of Islam. --- ALM 19:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UP

Netscott, I've just closed the discussion :P. Jimbo has commented here; isn't that enough? Yuser31415 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And FYI, I was a completely neutral party. Yuser31415 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Only because you just undid my closing of the poll, which was legitimate. I don't understand your reasoning, could you explain? Yuser31415 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on the active discussion board. If I were, I couldn't close the poll. Are you saying that anyone who closes the survey must have participated in it first? Yuser31415 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for being dense - ... but I'm seeing an off topic discussion over external links. Have I gone crazy or something :)? Anyway, if you disagree with me closing the poll I'm happy to leave it for the time being. Yuser31415 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cheers, Yuser31415 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zero Consensus

I really appreciate your interest and offer of help, but it's alright, - it was just something I picked that I thought would be cool. You can revert it for your own purposes if you like (fight the man!), but I'm not fussed. I feel like if I'm to have a joke, it should be an original joke anyway. If I think of anything good, I'll run it by you to see if we can't disrupt some bots (muhuhahaha!). :P Electriceel _[Talk] 00:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment removal

Thanks. Not something I like to do or often do, but it seems particularly rampant on this talk page. You had actually referred to policy, as it happens, but that was a little oasis.

I might also point out that your orange box is not a deliberate attempt to fool, more an invitation, and not what I was objecting to elsewhere. A different colour would be even better! How about pink?! ... or a nice bright yellow.

Tyrenius 02:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow revert battle and sock weirdness on Levitron page

I wonder if something official should be done about the repeated blanking of the Levitron page? Others besides yourself have objected, but without effect. The perps are probably all one person: William Hones (Whones?) owns the "Levitron" (Levitron?) name and the Fascinations (Fascinations?) toy company based in Seattle. The blanking/reverts have been coming from these three and from an IP signed as Fascinations at 66.213.201.58, plus similar blankings performed by two IP users resolving to Seattle Comcast. I count thirteen blanking/reverts from all these sources together. "Three revert rule" indeed. Hiding under socks and IPs only works if nobody bothers to closely examine an article's history page. --Wjbeaty 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gonial

Thanks for the info, but admins don't seem to care, it's been archived and no action...

Gonioul 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know how incidents are handled on en :)

Gonioul 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our proofs

Hi, Our proofs show that he has done so.[1]--Sa.vakilian 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of contrast in my sig

I tried to make the lettering in Planetary Chaos white but failed, maybe you can help.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

What's so illogical about pointing to an actual guideline instead of a failed proposal? >Radiant< 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in that case we should simply point the shortcuts to where they originally pointed, which in most cases is unrelated to both VIE and VINE. That sounds like a fair and neutral compromise, no? >Radiant< 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is this discussion that you speak of, about consensus for pointing WP:VOTE somewhere? >Radiant< 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What on earth are you talking about? You are making changes, and I am disagreeing with those changes and discussing them with you. Agitating has nothing to do with it. WP:TEA? >Radiant< 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Pointing out that a page that had no edits in over two months had in fact no edits for two months is a statement of fact, not agitating. I don't really understand your question; surely you're not saying that you threaten to set a battlefield with long protracted discussions, unless I give in and agree with your changes now? I'm sure that's not what you meant but it does rather read that way. >Radiant< 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [2]

[edit] Template vandal

Heh.[3]Proabivouac 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert of my edit in a contentious area - are you sure?

While I realise the area in which I was editing is contentious, I don't believe the content I added was controversial. For me it seemed somewhat like reverting an obvious spelling correction in a contentious area. If you insist, I'll discuss it on the discussion page but that just seems like extra work for nothing... --Seans Potato Business 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Village pump place was the first place I started. I never finished it though 'cause it's too damn long and people had started to repeat themselves. Then I ended up on a debate revolving around an edit who'd blocked someone for it. When I got fed up of that I moseyed on over to the Wikipedia:User page page. There's just SOOO much reading to be done before you can do or say anything around here. I really hate it. I post a proposal and (next to) [nobody cares...]. I don't really have a better suggestion, I just wish I didn't have to hold on to my two misinformed cents for so long. Arrgg! --Seans Potato Business 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templating lead image

Excellent idea[4]. Now the actual article can continue without disruption. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So would it be better to block anons who clearly know what they are doing when they revert, or sprotect the page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to say it, but "High" in BC is it for sure. ;)

Sorry netscott / HighInBC, but what strange notion makes you think that vandals will only damage the article in ways you prefer. Creating two articles only doubles the articles to be watched. People that want to remove the image, will do so on both the other page, AND on the muhammad page. It won't help, it will only make matters worse and create more work.

Remeber, these are VANDALS... not responsible citizens that desire discussion and civil behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.172.29 (talk • contribs) 03:56, February 26, 2007

Actually, most of the back and forth reverting has been done by our responsible citizens. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about reverting the transclusion solution at this point. (→Netscott) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahaa, I've got you!

Cop a load of this [[5]]! *Netscott cries 'noooo' and begins to melt or whatever* (what d'ya make of that then?) --Seans Potato Business 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right that my recent editing has betrayed one of my userboxes but the idea of concentrating on writing only works if I can trust the majority of other users to think clearly and do the right thing. This whole UI spoofing thing, and some would probably say the way people vote in RfA (without thorough investigation) and others means that I can't trust to leave politics to the politicians. :( --Seans Potato Business 11:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alim777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Let's just say that under the current context it's a bad idea to get into an edit war. 48 hours is pretty harsh since we can't really know if that user is privy to the discussion and would know that it's bad. I'll reduce it but if it happens again they'll probably get 48 hours. gren グレン 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Perhaps you are right, but on the other hand I am sure that I can work something out with SlimVirgin, if she actually does make the revert. From my experience, she is very much familiar with policy and also reasonable working with. But first, let's now see how things actually develop... Anyway, I appreciate that you agree with the majority of my recent edits there. I was aware that some of them might be considered a bit bold by some people. -- Karl Meier 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a new section and made a few comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamophobia#My_recent_edits -- Karl Meier 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture issue

No offense taken, Netscott. The newer picture is not bad but I do have two problems:

• The reasons given for the replacement do not hold, as the content the former picture is detectable without any difficulty.
• The older picture depicts the Miraj and hence was placed in the according section. The newer picture has no business being placed in this section. If we really want to include it, then we have to look for another place.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

People keep giving example of German wikipedia because it has lots of picture and they wish picture here. However somehow on the Dutch Muhammad page is also NOT censored and is very cool. Why English wikipedia cannot be like them? Having said the reason for this message is your help. I have go permission from two more flickr authors. That mean many more picture and one is excellent for Muhammad article. However, one flikr person say that he will like not to give away all rights but wish his picture is used for information, education purpose but not for commercial purpose. What copyright tag I should use while uploading his pictures. Looking for urgent reply. regards. --- ALM 11:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is why I have got the rights of this beautifull and centuries old calligraphy. [6]. However, he only wishes to give non-commercial licence for information, education etc. What tag should I use for such a licence? --- ALM 12:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be disrespact to the photographer. Hence I am going to say that he has released all the rights. It will still have same effect but if he will check wikipedia then he will not feel bad about us. :). BTW thank you for your suggestion at section A possible combination to end this. That is very cool one. regards. --- ALM 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

Hi Netscott,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV and I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [7].

Cheers,--Aminz 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jstandt

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. :-) You might want to let the 3RR blocking admin (User:Crum375) know about the latest anon IP, in case he wants to extend the Bbarnett block for block evasion. I could only block the IP for a limited time as it might not be static. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wazir Khan image

Hi Netscott, per talk I tried to move the Wazir Khan image to Muhammad#Seal of the prophets, due to its topicality there - that is one of the verses inscribed in "Muhammad" (see the Arabic original, you will see it there for yourself.) I also removed the Saudi flag as inappropriate to the article, and less relevant to this section. We need, and will find, a more historical/aesthetically superior/less political example of the Shahada than this. However, something went very wrong with the formatting, as the Kaaba image wound up further up in the article, discplacing the Islam template to the center, for reasons I could not discern.Proabivouac 10:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering...

Just wondering, as I noticed you were kind enough to revert the vandalism to my userpage, if you are planning on warning or blocking the user at any point. As much as I do enjoy SlimVirgin posting 'you are payed by Kazakh government' to my user and talkpages, the joke gets old pretty fast. KazakhPol 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"KazakhPol, the vandalism wasn't exactly what one would call "blatant" (ie: YOU SUCK! or the like)."[8] Uh... are you joking? It wasnt blatant vandalism? Maybe you forgot what she posted on my userpage:

• "I get payed to change the POV of articles, to cover vital information, that poses threat against the governments of Central Asia"
• "To hide truths about corruption and inequalities in the Central Asian countries"
• "To make sure the reality of the ways of those governments is not revealed"

Thats not vandalism? Maybe I'll add a few notes about who pays you to edit Wikipedia on your userpage.

You also claim you warned this editor. This[9]: "Greetings kindly refrain from editing user pages" is supposed to be a warning? Did you even look at her contributions? She went through the last twenty or so pages I edited and either removed content, added nonsense, or posted "warnings" about how I am paid by the Kazakh government. As to your doubt about SlimVirgin's responsibility, I suggest you look at her latest post about "my agenda."[10] KazakhPol 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honorifics

Generally, if reference to the belief in his prophethood is advised, I try to avoid the labeling of him as an "Islamic prophet" because this is pov. He is not just an Islamic prophet. He is a prophet to the Bahai, the Ahmadi, and other breakaway groups in addition to the Cao Dai in Vietnam. By saying he is a prophet in Islam, or avoiding labels at all and just letting context speak for itself, naming conventions are followed. On your other point, if I had wanted to make a point, my earlier statement about editing your userpage would not have been rhetorical. KazakhPol 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you immediately assume this would trigger an edit war... ? This is how several articles on purported prophets are already phrased. Look at Abraham. I suggest we end this conversation for the time being because right now it is unproductive and you are really starting to annoy me. KazakhPol 05:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veiled images

We have only single non-veiled images with good citation. Right? I have found three images veiled with citation.

• Topkapi Museum
  • [11], Nakkaş Osman
  • [12], Siyer-i Nebi, 1595

They are older and well citied right ?

• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  • [13].

Do you think I should try for arbitration? If that will be a better idea? Will you help me in filing arbitration? --- ALM 12:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not add the veiled image on the top please. Let the arbitration do it. --- ALM 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we could have better solution using arbitration. You will make our case weak by moving the veiled image in the lead. There should be no image in the lead and I wish to work for that for thing. I will appreciate your help at User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad. --- ALM 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly leave the unveiled image on the top and let arbitration to decide about that. --- ALM 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir :) --- ALM 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levitron edits

Thanks, blocked that one too. Let me know if there's any further problems. Regards. Trebor 16:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITAQALLAH

Thanks for mentioning this to me, and for clarifying the situation there regarding the stalker that is following and reverting me. Reading the replies, I believe that there doesn't seems to be anything to worry about for me. -- Karl Meier 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove ip info

Sir, could you please remove the ip trace info you did yesterday against the Dubai computer lab? It is feared this could open us up to hackers and vandels. To answer your question, we use American servers to prevent common sites from being blocked by the local Arab internet providers. I've posted from a local site to show you that I'm legit. Thanks for your time. -195.229.242.84 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discouraged

Netscott, what can be the point of merely "discouraging" fake credentials? That's like saying that misrepresenting sources is "discouraged," personal attacks are "discouraged," etc. Of course, it's only "discouraged" no matter what we say, because most policy is never enforced. If it's only "discouraged," then what did Essjay do wrong? What's so controversial about telling people not to make up total bullshit? I understand the skepticism towards some of the more complicated and intrusive proposals, but I'm completely baffled by the push-back on this.Proabivouac 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See User:Proabivouac/Ethics for dummies...am I wasting my time?Proabivouac 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a crucial difference: Jimbo advocated "discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up." We would not be saying here, try not to make such claims if you're unwilling to back them up (by vetting them with the office,) rather, don't under any circumstances make these claims if they are false.Proabivouac 09:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Were policy specific in this regard, Essjay may well have honored it. We do our contributors a disservice by enforcing unstated policies/refraining from stating enforced ones. Why not just say what we want upfront and give editors an occasion and opportunity to comply?Proabivouac 09:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] belaboring notability in Essay lead

I don't think when this is on prime time news it needs to be so lengthily belabored. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I did feel the need to vent a little on the AFD, but I would be as happy as anyone if it came out that Ms. Shiff just didn't do her homework. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short term vs brief -

I do understand what you are saying...Let's find something in between. "He was a brief employee" sounds like he went around in his underwear to me (actually, to my teenager who was the one who pointed it out). Perhaps "He was a Wikia employee from January 2007 until March 3, 2007"? Risker 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Took me a while to get your point about the teenagers, sorry. In this part of the world, the word "brief" is used almost exclusively as a noun, referring to either underwear or legal papers. I like your suggestion about being employed briefly, though. Sounds good, will put it in. Risker 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay again

Replied on my talk page, also supported you on the article's talk page. Metamagician3000 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a change. I now expect someone to tell me that verifiability trumps truth. That policy may come back to haunt us. We all here know what happened, but there will probably be attempts to turn the garbled impression of some journo at ABC News into the official version. Metamagician3000 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was too pessimistic. The things that were bothering me most now seem to be under control. Thanks for being one of the people to insist on some rigour with this article. Metamagician3000 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrors

Hi Netscott; I was surprised to see you remove the external links from depictions of Muhammad, but then I looked more closely at the sites, and the other content they host, and found they were mirrors of that zombietime thing, which I had not realized. Thanks for catching that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

I agree that the piece about Essjay in Criticism of Wikipedia is becoming long and should be merged with the article Essjay controversy when things have settled down.--Ianmacm 14:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

How are the screenshots in there against policy and why do the links need to be removed? I just really don't understand where you're coming from. --Dookama 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how saying that something caused certain Wikipedia policies to be (re?)considered is self-referential, but I'll trust the judgement of someone who's been here longer than I have on matters of policy. --Dookama 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay wikia

Hi, please see here. I replied on the article talk page. - Denny 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated the license on the Essjay Wikia image based on Wikia's public copyright records. - Denny 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

am I misunderstanding, or does your rationale imply that you can't redistribute on Wikipedia any screenshots of Wikia content? - Denny 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I saw on Wikia that it said, "It is often recommended that a template such as Template:Wikipedia be placed on a article copied from a GFDL wiki." but there was nothing... explicit on their end that detailed the level of GFDL tracing you did. wait to see what the FU page says, I guess. thanks! - Denny 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dup lead

I don't care where the information goes, really, but if you want to add info into the first paragraph, be sure to remove it from the other paragraphs. Regards, --Jayzel 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

So every word that Jimbo Wales should be taken as the words of God? Even Jimbo is human, and I know he wouldn't agree with the spamming issue.. — Moe 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course his opinion is put on the near-top of the list, so to speak (come on, he's Jimbo :p), but he can make mistakes :( I'm not saying it's Jimbo's fault, but sometimes his lack of activity on Wikipedia is key to him missing some of the little issues that spark up into bigger ones.. — Moe 03:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:JIMBOSAID

Hopefully I've cleared up what I meant at the MFD. -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kgeza67

He was initially interested in the Bombing of Dresden in World War II and UCLA Taser incident articles. I don't remember which other articles he liked to edit, sorry. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does my sig bug you?

For what it's worth, I picked a web-safe font (monospace) and by using lowercase letters but +1 size it does not disrupt the text flow as far as I can tell (Mozilla Firefox). If it bugs you, would you mind posting a screenshot? —dgies^t_c 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the screen shot too, I don't have any concerns about the sig, I am just interested in how different browsers render things. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dgies, Thanks for your note. I'm using Safari (browser) and the way it renders your sig it is about 3/4ths as large as User:RyGuy's (which is ridiculously too large imho). Larger sigs like that are only bothersome when through their larger size they stick out in such an unbalanced way on talk pages. Also I know that many people find sigs that are larger than standard text annoying which just gives all of us sig users a bad name :-S. (→Netscott) 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  I completely agree. That's why I went to the trouble of getting a cross-platform font and testing it in the midst of blocks of {{Lorem ipsum}} text. Perhaps I need to research HTML font attributes a bit more... —dgies^t_c 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I tell you, no matter how compliant you are, you will never get what you want on all browsers. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here fellas both of your sigs are messed up actually on my browser... as you'll both see. :-) (→Netscott) 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah! It's like you just told me my fly is undone. —dgies^t_c 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it has about the same vertical height on my Firefox browser. Oh lord! My name goes below the underline your have on your links! ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you've gone the other direction.... too small but at least it's not as garish. :-) Actually I'm curious to see how my sig looks like on your guys' browsers. Any chance for a reciprocal screen shot? (Preferrably of my sig on one of your page as opposed to my own... due to rendering differences). (→Netscott) 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On it's way. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:temp_screenshot.jpg. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, that is about how I imagined my sig to look on other browsers... but I suppose it looks slightly different with the talk → link of my sig is active. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That → symbol always gave me the impression that you were moving forwards at all times. I was going to say you can delete that screen shot when you are done with it, but I just realized you are not an admin, I thought you were. Let me know when you are done with it and I will delete it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete anytime (although Dgies might want to have a gander first). (→Netscott) 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It would seem Safari decided to "Think Different" about their layout engine. Anyway, I'm done with these. Thanks for the feedback. —dgies^t_c 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richards

Discuss on talk page. If necessary go through WP:DR, maybe WP:RFC (which is quite painless applied to article issues). Tyrenius 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dang I'm a moron

I couldn't believe that was me who put "2006" at Ryan Jordan, but the diff proves otherwise. Remind me not to try and post date a check any time soon.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly

Would you mind taking a pass or two at this article on RegisterFly and let me know what you think needs adjusting? I had asked Hipocrite a week or two ago to look, and he seemed to think it was alright, but he is gone now from Wikipedia... I think I did a good structural job on it (it's a bit complex, with two interweaving lawsuits across four parties, and fairly absurd allegations--see the $6,000 chihuahua) and it's all 101% sourced... but there is really little postive press/news on them unfortunately. I keep looking at it, thinking it might be an attack piece, but I think I may be looking too hard. Seems like a low-notability super successful company that imploded and is getting lots of fame for that, ala Enron (but smaller scale)... please let me know what you think, and make tweaks as needed if you have time or the inclination, or if you can share any advice. This was the most complex thing I've done on here yet--like 99% of the edits are me. thanks! - Denny 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon/Bbarnett

We can be reasonably certain by now these anons aren't User:Bbarnett, despite their location as his known tendency towards anonpuppetry and disruption. What other users involved here are known to be from that area? Any ideas?Proabivouac 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not missing ALM much, see this post, also his recent bad-faith reports of me and of Karl Meier. Perhaps he retired because he recognized hatred was getting the better of him? In any event, I struggle to recall anything that he's ever said or done which wasn't characterizable as all religious opinion, all the time, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. He's certainly a right to his opinions, but I'm not clear how this helps build the encyclopedia; instead, it's nearly always a distraction, if not a direct cause of division. One of recent user page versions proclaimed the moral imperative for all to "hate secularism," in accordance with his support for the establishment of a global Caliphate...wouldn't we all benefit if such controversial/provocative opinions were kept to ourselves? But as far as I can see, sharing them/imposing them on others is the only reason he is (was?) here.Proabivouac 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, these disruptive anons are, in all likelihood, Bless sins. I cannot post the relevant datapoints on wiki, but you may easily retrace them for yourself.Proabivouac 10:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.236.245.243

Several of us have gone great lengths to accomodate this user who IMHO wishes only to stir things up. Gwen Gale 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta links in articles

I noted by your edit comment that articles should not have Meta links. I'm happy to defer to your experiece, but could you please point me to the appropriate policy/guideline so I'll be able to refer to it in the future? Working on this article is definitely improving my understanding of how Wikipedia works. Thanks. Risker 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper Edits?

What improper edits did I make? Post a link to that article, don't make a cowardly general accusation and then "slap on my ispinfo". The only article I've edited recently was the Michael Kramer article where I removed an "original research" tag, because, further down the page there were at least a dozen links referring to the "original research" so it clearly was NOT original research. So if it was a different article post a link to it and if you're talking about the Michael Kramer article then explain how it was an improper edit. But you know what, I don't really care, I try to make one helpful edit to Wikipedia and some douche bag calls it improper, well fuck Wikipedia, the whole system's a joke and I predict Wikipedia will be forgotten in a year.

[edit] link to banned user?

Does en.wikipedia have a rule that forbids citing sources that involve people who also are banned Wikipedia users? That would be kind of odd from an encyclopedia point of view. --08-15 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy on reliable sources notes that How reliable a source is depends on context. I think it's clear from the context that Brand letter to the New Yorker is genuine (though I'll admit that is not so clear for the confirmation from the New Yorker), and citing it is appropriate because it is directly related to the article's subject. (See the note on questionable sources in the policy. --08-15 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richards again

Indeed. Note edit summary from Grandmasterka. I've left a note on his talk page asking him to comment. Tyrenius 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tnavbar font color

Is there a way to change the font colour in the tnavbar template? I asked this question on its talk page but didn't get a reply, so I thought I'd ask here? --Bluerain ^talk 06:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Bluerain ^talk 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be working fine. Thanks. --Bluerain ^talk 06:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So...

What's their goal? Gwen Gale 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finkelstein

You're welcome. Thanks for the feedback. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your imput

Hi Netscott. Thanks for your imput with the geocities external link at new anti semitism. Slim is very protective of that article it seems. Also, I mentioned that frontpagemag.com seems to be an attack site or at the very least overly opinionated. What is your take on them and their article here on Wikipedia? Anyways, thanks again and cheers, --Tom 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] templates

Thanks! That super sucked. I guess a lot of admins are out at the bar... yargh. Natalie 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please block me immediately if...

...you ever see me referring to myself in the third person. Risker 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory?

Hmm...I don't see it as inflammatory. Quite the opposite, if it can head off debates before the participants become heavily emotionally invested in them. I think it quite a shame the depictions discussion even came up, for it would have saved everyone much time and stress were there something which directly addressed the issue. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV/FAQ do so, but evidently not directly enough. That's my thinking, at least, and I doubt that Alecmconroy (from whom I've seen nothing remotely trollish or pointish) intends to inflame or divide.Proabivouac 04:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the view that Wikipedia should be censored, whether motivated by religion or anything else, does have less standing - in fact, it has none at all, if WP:NOT is to be taken at face value. Neutrality towards aniconism mandates an unbiased discussion of aniconism, not its inclusion among our editorial considerations. A religious point of view is trumped by the neutral point of view, which mandates that religious views be discussed neutrally, as opposed to religiously. One can certainly make a case that NPOV violates itself - it’s non-neutral towards anything but neutrality - or that NOT does - it censors censorship - but such construals are for obvious reasons unhelpful and impractical. Perhaps I've not understood you correctly, but it strikes me that similar thinking may be at work here. Proabivouac 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott-- I hadn't actually planned on putting this forward until the Muhammad debate was basically settled, but since everyone's editing it and trying to delete it, I guess that's that. There are some people who say: "Wikipedia shouldn't have any image of Muhammad/Bahá'u'lláh/whoever, on any page, under any circumstances". Now, everyone seems to agree that argument is flatly wrong. No reputable editor has seriously suggested deleting all such images-- there is a widespread consensus that if images are useful and beneficial to an article, they shouldn't be delete. This seems like a non-controversial statement-- all the arguments we've seen on Muhammad, for example, lately have centered around questions of whether the images are useful or beneficial, not whether they should be automatically deleted because they're offensive. Similarly, everyone seems to agree that using images "just because you can, just to prove a point, or as a way to harass" is wrong. Likewise, everyone seems to agree that the bowlderized images are inappropriate.

And yet-- people still show up proposing that any offensive images should automatically be deleted. Just yesterday, a user Iman S1995 showed up, saying that because the images are offensive, they should automatically be deleted. But by this point, people are sick of talking about that argument, and they just tersely said "no, that would violate our policies". The user in question struck me as young, and I imagined that the answer she got was probably unsatisfactory, and basically "because I said so". So, after I was done writing out a verbose note to her explaining why, I got to thinking that it would be it would be very handy to have a page to point users like that to in the future.

So, before we delete something that hasn't even been written yet, we ought to take a step back and ask if it's really such a bad idea to figure out what, if anything, we might want to say about this. Because Iman s1995 isn't the last person who will show up, confused why we aren't automatically deleting something that is offensive. Wikipedia is not censored is certainly applicable, but people clearly have trouble making the leap from censorship to aniconism.

Anyway-- this debate has come up four times at least. If we've learned anything from that experience, we ought to figure out what that is and write it down. If not, we'll be doomed to repeat the same debate endlessly. --Alecmconroy 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this edit even make sense given the title of that page? (→Netscott) 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno-- it makes sense in my mind, but perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity if it's not clear to others what we're going for. The page isn't actually supposed to be controversial, believe it or not-- it was just supposed to distill out the parts that I thought we all agreed on: 1) "Saying 'this image violates my religious beliefs , so it should go' is not automatically a good enough reason to delete an image that is beneficial to the encyclopedia. and 2) "Saying 'Wikipedia is not censored, so suck it' is not by itself automatically a good enough reason to add images that don't do anything other than annoy people or prove a point.

So, that's what I'm shooting for. It really shouldn't be controversial-- it just reflects what I think everyone pretty much agrees upon. Now if the current text doesn't do a good job of conveying it, then we should figure out a way to tweek it. --Alecmconroy 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy redux

Well, I have waded through the entire talk page to ensure I didn't miss any issues, and have added a new thread specifically identifying those that seem to be on the table now. Could you please take a look at them, and add any I may have missed?

While you're there, any chance I could persuade you to archive the sections I've marked off as resolved? I've never had the need to do archiving, and I don't want to start experimenting on this page.

How would you suggest we find some fresh eyes to look at this article, and actually comment? (I can feel tons of people breathing down my neck, but they're astonishingly quiet right now.)Risker 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

I am very interested in how this is going to turn out, I am going to sit back and watch. No worries about the deletion sorting thing, to be honest I don't know much about that particular process myself. Goodnight, and peace! ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ads to benefit Wikipedia

Terribly sorry about that. I created the ads in question; Real96 decided to try to push for my work used in a way that I never intended – I would be firmly against having them outside of userspace – Qxz 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/3RR

Your edits to that page apparently deleted other people's reports. Was that intentional? Khoikhoi 19:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This was most likely the result of a database sneeze that was happening earlier today, several peoples edits resulted in blanking through no fault of their own. It seems to be fixed now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please fix your signature

Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion of templates: Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, for example) are forbidden...

Please fix your signature to remove the transclusion. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Netscott/s1.js. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not persuaded—please fix, or get consensus to amend the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline first. I could give you reasons why I'm not persuaded, but this isn't the correct forum. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Bell, at the top of the page it is marked as a guideline is it not? (→Netscott) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I not explicitly say "guideline"? The reasons the guideline says "forbidden" instead of "discouraged" (as it does for almost everything else in the guideline) is for technical reasons. Despite that fact that you feel that you have addressed one of the technical considerations by using a subpage with the .js extension, you have not addressed all of the technical concerns. Please fix. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is to fix? If I don't alter my sig there is no re-caching occuring. If there is no re-caching occuring the servers are not taxed. Did you not understand that part? (→Netscott) 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

a) At one line, your sig is not unreasonably long; b) there is no guarantee that you won't change it; c) the guideline is there for a reason—if you think differently, please discuss first to gain consensus for your view. Thank you, please fix until consensus for your view on this is established. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug, if you feel this is disruption despite my perfectly logical explanations then by all means block me and I'll move on to spending the countless hours I do here elsewhere. (→Netscott) 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, perhaps a more productive solution would be to propose an amendment to the guideline. If you have solved the issues with the rule, then it should be accepted. Leaving over a signature is not going to benefit you or the project. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Block you? I'm just making a polite request. I never said, nor insinuated, anything about blocking, so I'm not sure how this jumped to there. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You know I spend literally countless hours contributing and if despite perfect reasoning about how I have addressed the concerns in WP:SIG I am forced to change my signature then I would just rather spend my time elsewhere... yes it is that serious to me. (→Netscott) 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, if you feel so strongly, are you opposed to discussing your reasoning and gaining consensus? I don't understand the disconnect between your strong opinion on this and your apparently similarly strong desire against getting consensus. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One of your concerns is that there is no guarantee that I'll not change my sig. Well there is a reason that my sig is name s1... if I decide to change my signature then it will become s2. All of the s1 will remain the same. Does that make better sense? (→Netscott) 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug Bell, this is not a consensus issue. Note that WP:SIG says "developers". Developers≠consensus. (→Netscott) 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your pledge on how you intend to use this is relevant. However, the difference in length between
   {{User:Netscott/s1.js}}
and
   ''([[User talk:Netscott|<span title='Leave me a message.'>→</span>]][[User:Netscott|<span style='background: white; color: grey' title='Go to my userpage.'>Netscott</span>]])''
does not explain why we would want to start allowing (and certainly not encouraging) people to use transclusion for their signatures. Look, I'm not going to block you over this (and find it somewhat amusing that you seemed to think I was headed there), but in the interest of community consensus I would like to encourage you to discuss this and gain consensus (maybe even amend the guideline) for the practice instead of unilaterally decinding that you've addressed all of the concerns. As for "Developers≠consensus", the developers weigh in on discussions they feel relevant. I suggest you take the discussion to WP:VPT since that forum is monitored by the developers. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, would you agree that serious contributors are given a bit of leeway when it comes to how they conduct themselves on the project? I have been using my signature since December 10, 2006 and you are the first to raise it as an issue with me. You must know how active I am. If others were going to be copying me then this would have already occured. In reality your concerns are a little over stated and this is why: Have you tried to add a transclusion to the sig area of your preferences? If not then please try to and tell me what happens. (→Netscott) 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't tried, but I'm going to guess that it doesn't produce the expected result of transcluding the page. As to your other comments, sure, serious users are given leeway (thus my amusement that you thought I was even thinking about blocking you over this issue). As to complaints, no, I don't find that unusual. I've asked other people to change from using inclusion in the past and I suspect they had their sig for a while. However, if the developers have added restrictions on creating sigs that use transclusion, that may explain why I don't see this very often anymore. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and the developer's logic for restriction is expressed as well. Now you are fully aware that I've answered both concerns relative to the logic the developers expressed. Yes the developers have made the preferences area essentially prohibit transclusions this is why you don't see them very often these days... for most people they're just too much hassle. (→Netscott) 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While I standby my previous requests, I think I've made my point and I won't bother you about this further. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Dear Scott,

Thanks very much Scott. I'll quote it word by word(I need to go to a library and find the exact quote). That section was about Medieval times. That view continued in post-Reformation and Enlightenment while being gradually reformed. Here is a page(written by Susannah Heschel, University of Chicago Press) describing the views of Muhammad during the post-Reformation and Enlightenment[14] It also says that "Muhammad was widely vilified by Christians and ignored by Jews". Cheers, --Aminz 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My sig

I did improve it, I made it smaller. Maybe you came to one of my earlier edits. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

done, thanks BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fight carries on

You involve yourself in too much Wikidrama Netscott. Just let me do what I do - fight the Islamophobic wikipedians. 72.88.162.57 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those users would be proud to be called that. They're not guided to do any good on here; the only thing they want is for the Islam-related pages to be as anti-Islamic as possible. How many pro-Islamic edits will you find from Karl, CltFn, Sefringle, Arrow740, and other editors like them? Almost none, I would guess. If it were up to them, the pages on Wikipedia would look something like this. You and many other people are not going to call them out on that because any person looking for an adminship in the future does not want to make too many enemies. I don't blame you. 72.88.162.57 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was there for like a second. Antoninon 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Antoninon (talk · contribs) seems to be a sock. ITAQALLAH 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely, he is a sock created to undo the edits of anon.Proabivouac 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken any action, Netscott? Arrow740 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So the 5 reverts in 24 hours (and this is just one of the pages) weren't enough? Arrow740 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the two of them. In any case you're content to joke around with this person who has clearly violated WP policies for days, but threaten action about this suspected sock. Why not be even-handed? Arrow740 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Arrow740 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Except for a minority of the articles, WP projects an inaccurately mild version of Islam. I object to this. Arrow740 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, one is to gather that in my view I am striving for accuracy and neutrality. You will be hard pressed to find an edit of mine you could categorize as "spinning." Arrow740 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that there is very much spinning in the negative direction. Those of us who you seem to perceive as vilifying Islam almost always just put in facts and neutral language. The facts we choose to put in are often damning, but that is because the "glorification" camp floods the articles with apologetics and cherry-picked POV quotes of their own. "Have you ever found yourself seeing that wording in an article was villifying (not presenting a neutral point of view) of an Islam related topic?" Rarely. There are a couple editors who arrived in the past couple weeks who have putting in that sort of language. I myself did the same for the first couple weeks I was here, then I wised up. Actually I am not out to portray Islam in an inaccurate light. I'm curious, is there an article now that you can point to and say that it is unfairly anti-Islam? Arrow740 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If this range were to be blocked, a lot of users would get upset. 72.88.165.163 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott, I don't understand why a banned user (who was, I assume, banned for a reason) is allowed to flout WP policies and attempt to provoke editors like User:Karl Meier and otherwise interfere in wikiaffairs. Arrow740 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some admin would enjoy playing whack a mole. Anyway there's always semi-protection. Arrow740 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to criticism of Islam, the notable criticisms often don't come from scholarly sources. That site is quite notable as far as I'm concerned; the author has received multiple death threats, the site is linked to by many other critical websites, and it is a very thorough website. The site does not advocate, incite, or express hatred of anyone except Muhammad and his lieutenants as far as I can tell. Arrow740 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your standards are. A discussion of any supposed factual inaccuracies and/or hateful misrepresentations on that site would bring us too far afield. The "people who link to it would get blocked" is sufficiently intimidating that I will refrain from linking to it. However I will leave you this inspiring quote (note the parentheses are not in the original). Arrow740 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That individual could not spell the name of a subject she claims to have taught at the university level. Nevertheless, I will apologize. Arrow740 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we request for a CheckUser on 72.88.165.163 to see who is behind this IP? We can then see if there's a banned user who is evading blocks: "The usual use of this is to check for blocked users coming back with sockpuppet accounts." I'm just guessing that it could be banned User:Shams2006 or even User:BhaiSaab. Both of these names have used sock puppets before and were banned for that.--Matt57 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This makes me suspicious if the 72.88.xxx.xxx vandal is actually ALM Scientist ? A curiosity. --ProtectWomen 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(and that Antoninon (talk · contribs) is a sock created by the 72.88.xxx.xxx vandal as a diversion--ProtectWomen 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It could very well be, I agree. I had ALM once take off a link to "List of former Muslims" on the Wikiproject Islam page, saying that this list had nothing to do with the Project - which is ridiculous, it has EVERY thing to do with the project. When I asked him why he did that, he said "I did not like that link there, its offensive to me", or something of the sort. I saved that edit of his as an incident in my page for a record of the type of stuff some of these guys do. And AH, I see now, there was this SAME kind of IP which removed that list again here, near to the same incident, so definitely it could be ALM. This same ALM then mounted an attack on Karl Meir, protesting that Karl was reverting too many edits from this same IP vandal. I hope a check user can be done. We need more admins on Wikipedia. --Matt57 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, User:ALM scientist is no longer active and he only recently became inactive. Interesting. --Matt57 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks I'm sorry but ALM is not your man (or woman - whoever the IP user is)... I know where ALM's been living and it is not on the east coast of the United States. (→Netscott) 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's BhaiSaab and His_excellency. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you using your new superpowers Blnguyen? :-) (→Netscott) 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no such powers, except these guys have had their bans reset due to edits on this IP range before. Not to mention they visited my page from this IP range, as well as access IRC with it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd have my bets on it being only one of the two. The more "heated" one. While the editing has been disruptive I'm guessing the point was to bring some needed attention to these articles and I suspect that has worked to a certain extent. Still it strikes me as odd to go off like that when the ultimate result (direct, immediate result) will be sprotection of the concerned articles. (→Netscott) 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you ask, YES I AM a sock-puppet and whoever knows User:His excellency knows why this is a VERY good idea. He is the worst attacker ever on the whole wikipedia and a couple users and administrators like him because they like seeing his attacks. This is just another example. It's NOT OK that hes welcome on this user talk. Its NOT OK that people are tying to use his attacks as a way to 'bring some needed attention' to anything or to get any advantage from his sadistic hurting of wikipedia users. Please Netscott don't be part of the User:His excellency anti Jewish and personal attack problem. Youve helped him enough already and maybe by this time it's getting a little questionable.HEWatch 06:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the words of of dear old TU. Let me be upfront. HE's anti-everything attacks were bullshit... HE's disruption is bullshit (if it indeed is him) and he was rightly banned for the length of time he recieved due what he originally did. Personally I think it was a lot of bravado and trolling style disruption trying to do what trolls do and get people to react (with much success unfortunately)... remember "don't feed the trolls". Still the guy did have some valid points. I have no way of preventing anonymous editors from editing my talk page and I welcome anyone who might find attack language directed at themselves here to remove such nonsense at will (as I explained to User:Arrow740 just the other day). My interaction with everyone in these regards has been one of recusal. I don't consider myself a neutral party for either HE or those he tends to rile up with his trollish behavior. As far as these latest disruptions I did find it odd that of the folks involved no one took it upon themselves until late in the game to report anything, why not? I report such nonsense immediately when it comes to trollish behavior that comes my way. I will tell you that in fact I directed User:Arrow740 on where to go and what to do about that... since I wasn't directly involved in the situation like he was. (→Netscott) 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is really very silly. We need a Check user for all these socks. --Matt57 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, you win

Will you delete this too? 129.19.6.125 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] that template!

I see the gorilla vandalism has started up again. I thought maybe requesting sprotection would be a good idea, but I have to run out the door. If you've ever made such a request, you might consider it for the template. I looked at the history and every anon or new person edit within the last 10 days is vandalism. Plus, since it's a template, it's on maybe 3 watchlists. Natalie 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProphetofDoom.net

You've said that the POD site is a hate site. Do you think Faith Freedom International is also hate site? What about Ibn Warraq? Is he a "hater"? If there was to be an article on WP on POD, would you oppose that then? --Matt57 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

REAL QUOTES FROM ISLAM'S QURAN:

http://answeringPROPHETOFDOOM.net/Islamic_Quotes.php

"And KILL them where ever you find them..." Quran 2:191

http://answeringPROPHETOFDOOM.net/Islam_in_Action_Kill_Them_Where_Ever_You_Find_Them.php

Know the real picture of Islam ... http://answeringPROPHETOFDOOM.net

finally Exposed !!!!

[edit] TOC

Netscott, the idea you have here is very good. The blank space was hideous, and I hadn't realized that there was any way to solve this. However, it's wreaking havoc on the way the transcluded images are displaying: Maome should be in Overview, and the Kufic Qur'an should be in Sources. As it is, they've been skipping around with each new version. I think we should consider ending this transclusion if and after the latest poll settles (keeping the talk subpage of course.) Or maybe you know of another way of solving the diplay problem?Proabivouac 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Feel free to adjust the image transclusions and warning messages to make them appear roughly in the same places that they've been appearing as we hopefully come to a close on the image placement issue. And as far as ceasing the transclusions all together that is of course the logical thing to do. Thanks the for the message Proabivouac. (→Netscott) 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Netscott. I noticed that you are using your Template:TOChidden in a lot of articles. However, I'm afraid those changes present some accessibility problems because the lead section cannot be reached by a blind user easily. Therefore a floating TOC should be placed after the lead section, as you can see in Wikipedia:Accessibility#Article structure. Best regards --surueña 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well this template can certainly be defloated and just kept in the show/hide box and left to the page for formatting. In just about every instance so far the template has occupied the same place as the original TOC. (→Netscott) 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All I'm shooting for is the negation of unecessary blank space in articles. That is very distracting. TOChidden was a solution that I worked out that seemed viable. (→Netscott) 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing your template, only your use of it: please, put it below the lead section, just before the first header, this way there is no accessibility problems. In you are replacing in an article an existing floating template, please put it below the lead section, this doesn't present additional effort (and you will be fixing an accessibility problem, congratulations! :-). Thanks --surueña 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well below the lead is a bit problematic for formatting. Are you sure that this type of TOC is what is of concern? This TOC is almost completely a different type of character from the others. I'm thinking that just like for everyone else those with accessibility problems will be able to adapt to the new format. No? (→Netscott) 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that this is a problem. It's not a problem with your code (so it cannot be fixed. Maybe the formatting if you want), but with its placement. The floating TOC (any floating TOC) before the lead section is always a problem for blind users because their screen reader cannot reach it easily. Please, this is a Wikipedia policy, don't violate it! I can help you to move the template below the lead section.

However, maybe you should discuss massive changes like this at the village pump, so people can comment about this layout changes. See WP:DISCUSS. I have also committed this error in the past, with good intention but changes like this require some consensus. Best regards --surueña 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Surueña, thanks for putting me on the right track about this. That would have been a pain to have gotten much further along as it would have created more clean-up work. I went back and fixed the ones I had already placed. As well I and another editor worked on the template itself to better insure that it works more consistently across all of Wikipedia. So, thank again for that! ;-) (→Netscott) 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. There are a lot of policies, and as I said I was too bold sometimes and I had made similar mistakes in the past! Keep improving this great project. Best regards, --surueña 09:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wp:lead

Hey good to hear from you. I don't have strong opinions on applicability of WP:LEAD to that article one way or the other so probably will hold off contributing...I've been off wikipedia and internet in general since I've been heavily preoccupied with some stuff in real life. :) Tendancer 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet Muhammad's entry

dear netscott,thank you for your recent edit.can you please tell me why you ommitted the entry i made??many muslims agree with it and many of us see no reason for its deletion.hope i'm making the right decision by discussing with you.thank you Grandia01

thank you for your reply nescott.here's my revised entry after citing it with attributable sources as you suggested:

• According to some scholars, vague hints of Muhammad's upcoming prophecy are foretold in the Christian Bible. Among those scholars is Ahmed Deedat[15][16]. A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century.^[1]

as you can see i omitted the didache gospel part because i found no attributable source for it in English.about ahmed deedat,in case you didn't know he is a very respected islamic scholar that is well known primarily in muslim countries.i included a wikipedia link for him so that readers can know more about him. again,thank you for your reply and kindness in assisting me with this entry.hope that i'm able to post it on wikipedia without any problems.

Dear mr scott hope i'm not bothering you with all these notes.i just wanted you to know that a "gospel of st barnabas" section has been opened in the talk page.i'd really appreciate if you can help us out with any comments you may have.. thanks again Grandia01 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

hi again mr scott, would be able to join us in our talks again on muhammad's discussion soon??please do so.thank you..Grandia01 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militant Islam

Hi, I noticed you have recently edited Militant Islam. I think you may be interested in the afd. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this you? [17].

If not, then I'm sorry to have bothered you. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My bad

Oh sorry. I edited it before seeing your message. my bad =PKmarinas86 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Template:TOChidden

Hi Scott,

...knowing your proficiency for template code...

(Aside:) I'm flattered, as a year or so ago I knew almost the proverbial "nada" about this kind of coding – although given some recent fumblings with {{Infobox Country or territory}}, I realize "nada" has only become "little more than nada"...

I was wondering if you could take a look at this creation I've put together that essentially mixes code from Template:Linkimage and Template:TOCleft...

I enquired some time ago about whether or not a user preference for autocollapsed TOCs might be implemented, but soon appreciated that a small volunteer group of developers (with the necessary know-how) verses an unremitting stream of glitches etc meant it'd be a long time before this might appear (if ever). {{TOChidden}}, therefore, looks like the workaround required, so thanks for creating it – and nothing suggests itself as missing or awry. (I'd name it and format the code a little differently, but that'd be cosmetic, personal preference.)  Furthermore, you've (unwittingly) pointed out to me that toccolours is another class to which "collapsible" etc can be attached, something I hadn't considered before. So thanks again!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for your response. I'm curious to know... what name would you give this template? (→Netscott) 08:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, strike that idea; I was thinking of something along the lines of "collapsed TOC", but I guess anyone familiar with that kind of expression wouldn't misunderstand "TOChidden"!  David (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Thanks. Tyrenius 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh gosh no!

Your participation there was most welcome. I just wanted to clear that section out before it became a huge trollfest which was beside the point. :) --Jimbo Wales 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials

Not really; I expected him to clarify whether it was just an idea to be treated like most people's ideas, or something deemed necessary by the board or other Powers That Be. And he did. >Radiant< 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay picture

Denny Colt, regardless of whether or not it gets used I just wanted to tell you, "Well done on that". :-) (→Netscott) 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks! :) After the moderate confusion last time, between your template and the screen capture I think we're golden, so we can focus on content to nitpick rather than borderline legality nits to pick... - Denny 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weak enforcement

Here's a fellow that's been engaged in the same disruption for two-and-a-half months.[18] He's been repeatedly warned about the very same thing, with people telling him he will be blocked if he continues - people who now look like fools. What's wrong with us?Proabivouac 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's honestly gotten to the point where I'm reluctant to warn anybody about anything, lest my credibility suffer when nothing is done.Proabivouac 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be a bot for all we know.Proabivouac 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the account should probably be indefinitely blocked as a spamming only account. (→Netscott) 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I have done just that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

(p.s. Netscott, that's everyday speech, not something you'd only hear in sacred contexts. Apologies nevertheless.)Proabivouac 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand but you've got to admit that it was a bit mocking... I try to keep myself free of that in hopes for a better chance to edit with mutual respect for those who tend to use such expressions in all seriousness. (→Netscott) 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to editing and collaborating with Muslims on Islam related topics I would suggest that you not use that term (Alhamdulillah) lightly. (→Netscott) 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right. Though I honestly did not know that any sacred ambiance still accompanied this phrase...was going to write "thank God," then thought, "Hallelujah!"...(here we can be certain no one would care.) I'm not always as thoughtful as I'd like to be, and I agree with you that taking that extra measure of care makes sense in a space this sensitive. Always feel free, here or anywhere else, to remove any comment of mine that you feel similarly inappropriate. I consider it doing everyone a favor.Proabivouac 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full quote

Hi Netscott,

Here is the full quote from page 194 (Str added fact tag) of the book written by F.E.Peters. Please add it as you wish (I am out of 3rr):

Muhammad's attitude toward the people of the Book, as he called those who shared the same scriptural tradition with Islam, was generally favorable. Early on, in fact, he had called them to verify his message. But as time passed, the Quran came to look on Jews and Christians as adherents of rival rather than collegial faiths. Some of this change in attitude was dictated by events at Medina itself, where Jewish tribes made up part of the population. Not only did the Jews of Medina reject Muhammad's prophetic claims; they began to connive with his enemies in Mecca to overthrown him. Muhammad's own reaction was determined and progressively more violent. As the Prophets' political strength in the oasis grew, the Jewish tribes of Medina were first banished, then taken and enslaved, and finally executed on the spot. This quite extraordinary behavior is matched by nothing in the Quran, and is quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina. We must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgressions of the law of God.

Cheers, --Aminz 07:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, in my message to you I was speaking with regard to the bit of text you entered that I reverted. Not this entire quote... that's what Wikiquote is for. (→Netscott) 07:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see Peters says: "Not only did the Jews of Medina reject Muhammad's prophetic claims; they began to connive with his enemies in Mecca to overthrown him."

I can not revert you(I am out of 3rr now). Can you please edit it yourself? Also, I added the reference for the page number for these quotes(but you reverted it). Can you please fix that as well. Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 08:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, Can you also please comment on the dispute on this article Muhammad's attitude toward animals ? Thanks --Aminz 08:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Greetings, I just noticed your alphabetizing of my sig collection. Thanks for that. :-) (→Netscott) 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome : ) - One of the things I enjoy doing is organising lists. Glad to hear you appreciated/enjoyed it. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Hello Szvest, tell me is this your doing? :-) (→Netscott) 02:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hehehe. Nope. I've seen User:Faisalt (i am not sure about the spelling though) doing some minor edits here lately. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:BhaiSaab

Hi - according to the discussion at WP:CN, there is consensus for doing so. Admittedly much of the debate was for user:His excellency, but as far as user:BhaiSaab was discussed, there was clear consensus. Also, if a person such as BhaiSaab or Hkelkar engages in multiple accounts of socking and disruption (in multiple violation of an ArbCom ruling), then it is fairly straightforward. For example, when the community ban of Hkelkar was being discussed, the discussion tapered off after a couple of days, but Hkelkar continued his ip sockpuppetry, so action needed to be taken. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Tnavbar update

Hi again Scott,

...per the request of a few users I've update the Tnavbar code to allow for setting a color for the edit words ... Could you replace the code with this new version for us?

Sorry to've overlooked; I've now copy-pasted the code (correctly, I hope). Yours, David (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTUS image

It's actually Image:Maome.jpg that keeps getting blanked, the same one which gave rise to the mediation and behind which so many editors rallied for the lead. After all that, we can conclude that this one pretty much has to stay, no matter what. The SCOTUS image...I'd think this would be a natural fit for the Reformer section, since the SCOTUS "lawgiver" view parallels the academic view presented here. However, that would entail moving it up the page, so I've refrained.Proabivouac 07:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Your edit to submission

I apologize for reverting your edits, I guess the anti-vandal tool picked up bad faith edits which you did not cause. However, please remain civil at all times (click here to see what I am talking about).  ~Steptrip 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a bot, more like a program that runs only on wikipedia (click here to see its main page).  ~Steptrip 07:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I have gotten complaints about my reverts while on RC patrol, although I have shrunk them down quite a bit from when I first started using the tool (P.S. The tool is not mine, as far as you are talking about creation and ownership).  ~Steptrip 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  ~Steptrip 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Sig

in this edit you used a transcluded sig. This is bad. Please start substing it, and make sure that all uses are substed, for reasons in that link. Thanks! ST47Talk 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's .js. Sorry! ST47Talk 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufism

Thanks for your note Netscott. I hadn't realised that till you mentioned it. I'm a little edgy right now and should probably log off and come back to discuss this tomorrow. Thanks. :)--Nkv 16:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *poke*

*poke*—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TU and HE

Hi, Netscott. I wonder would you consider going here and changing Firstname Lastname in one of your posts to just Firstname. As I recall, Timothy left partly because he was concerned at the lenient treatment given to an editor who had really made some very nasty attacks, and was unhappy at the idea of his name showing up in Google searches with HE's accusations against him. He presumably registered with his real name. HE didn't so was not so vulnerable. I remember Timothy made one edit after he had left, and Aminz welcomed him back. Timothy asked to have his talk page re-deleted, because he simply didn't want records of his name to be on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked or banned, and I think his sockpuppetry was of an entirely different nature from that of HE. He wasn't trying to evade a ban. Also, from my experience with him (while I often disagreed with him), he would never have used a sock in order to make multiple reverts or votes. Nor, in my opinion, was he trying to be deceitful: he simply does not want any reference to his real name on Wikipedia. There was nothing "disgusting" about trying to protect his real name from showing up in more Google searches. Thanks for asking Ryulong to delete the pages. I was just arriving at his page to make the same request. Cheers. Musical Linguist 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm going to take advantage of your (reluctant!) permission to modify your post. I wouldn't have the same level of sympathy for his sockpuppetry if he had originally registered with a name like User:Cupofcoffee, had left under that name at the time of the ArbCom case, and had then created socks several months later to comment on His excellency anonymously. But he obviously felt sufficiently strongly about it that he wanted to comment. Whether he used his real name or a sock, it would be obvious who he was. I know that he wanted to have all traces of his real name gone from Wikipedia. I remember that he even seemed upset when he made one or two edits after disappearing, and Aminz posted on his talk page that he was glad to see him back. TU said he was sorry he had made those edits, and asked to have the talk page deleted again, and I did it for him. So that explains satisfactorily (to me at least) why he wouldn't want to post as TU. If he posted without logging on, it would still be obvious who it was, and it would mean his location could be traced. So the use of a sockpuppet, just for that purpose, while it hardly seems admirable, is not at all the same as the use of one for multiple votes or reverts, or for block evasion. Would it haave been more acceptable to you if the sock had said explicitly that he was TU, when it was obvious anyway? That would have defeated the purpose, since he doesn't want his name on Wikipedia, not because he wants to avoid the connection between an abandoned account and a post he might make now, but because the abandoned account is presumably in his real name. I don't think you should be angry about that. There are people who have had their personal lives severely disrupted (and I do mean severely) through having their real name connected to their Wikipedia identity. I think the "right to vanish" becomes stronger when it concerns a real life identity and not just a username. Regarding the matter of FairNBalanced and the image — I don't know anything about it; I didn't follow it. I do know that TU was friendly with Aminz, who is a Muslim, so I don't think he can be an islamophobe, as HE claims. Cheers. Musical Linguist 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re [19], "with the tags prominently displaying" might be mistaken as a threat to dispay his name if he does not behave. I do not think that is appropriate, and it may not be the message you mean to send. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Thanks for removing the "racists" category from the Michael Richards article. On this - we agree! :) LOL! Have a nice day! Cleo123 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conflict of interest

Netscott - you have exceeded the ridiculous. What is the point of making accusations against me that don't make an iota's sense? Lemme try this final time to get your reasoning straight: Rama's Arrow made a statement on Bakasuprman's behalf on WP:RFAR/Hkelkar, so BhaiSaab's indef-block must be revoked. 2 + 2 now suddenly = 5?

Speaking of WP:COI, perhaps I could point out, using Netscottlogic, 2 reasons why you shouldn't even post at this discussion: (1) Blnguyen has blocked you twice. Using your logic, you have a COI since Blnguyen initiated this discussion. (2) Being blocked so many times for disruption, you are in the same category of users as BhaiSaab, more interested in wrecking Wikipedia. COI. Good day to you, Rama's arrow 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you have no idea whatsoever about WP:COI or any of my work. Hkelkar messaged me 6 times, so I'm pro-Hkelkar? Have you tried looking for the diffs where I encouraged him numerous times to abandon his ways, to no avail. Did you get a chance to see the discussion for perma-banning him, which I endorsed and carried out myself?

Get this straight - I have zero tolerance for trolls like Hkelkar and BhaiSaab who do nothing but wreck and disrupt Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this category includes you. Refrain from violating WP:NPA by making false accusations and trying to harass users. And spare yourself the agony of wasting time/energy in framing bogus accusations. Rama's arrow 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to be known as a troll, then stop acting like one - do not make false accusations against any user - they are personal attacks. BhaiSaab's perma-ban is justified by his repeated violations of ArbCom's decisions and community consensus. He is not being punished for anybody else's sins, just his own. And I'm sorry, but I can't follow Netscottlogic that BhaiSaab must be let off the hook b'coz he was caught only 3 times, as opposed to Hkelkar's 5. I am extremely upset that you tried to slander me in order to get your own way at the discussion. Rama's arrow 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to remove BhaiSaab's indef-block because there are definitive grounds for it - I don't make any administrative decision unless there are solid grounds for it. If other respectable editors find the indef-block to be unwarranted, another administrator may remove it and I will respect that decision. But what makes you think that I will accept your slurs and bad-faith accusations? Did you ever assume good faith with me or Blnguyen? You think this is a conspiracy against BhaiSaab? Rama's arrow 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply about unknown char

That was interesting! I don't know either:) If you find it out, leave a message on my talk too. cheers. --Pejman47 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

my keyboard can be switched between Persian and English by holding "control+ shift", but I am not familiar with that char; and I don't remember using "control+ shift" when I was typing that message. --Pejman47 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

you are welcome!--Pejman47 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{TOChidden}}

is hot! - NYC JD (interrogatories) 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion on Muhammad

Should we talk about ending the transclusion and re-integrating the images into the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, given the appearance of a general consensus on the issue of images of Muhammad at this point it is logical to cease utilization of transclusions. My only concern is the repetitively disruptive User:TharkunColl. If he continues in his disregard for the consensus version then I suspect we'll be back to a need for them. I think the transcluding should end but that the Muhammad/images page should be kept in place given the possibility of further need for it. (→Netscott) 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)