Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 29 June 2005

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 04:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

This goes double for me also. I can tell that you are going to be quite a good editor, you seem to have a firm grasp of NPOV already! I'm an admin on this site, so if you need help with articles or admin tasks, please, leave a message on my talk page :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since you asked what to do if Jihad was locked... you can try putting your edits in a "sandbox" article, like, say, User:BrandonYusufToropov/Jihad, and copying it into the article later when it does get unlocked. Good luck - God knows the page needs work... - Mustafaa 00:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain

Can you vote for merge for article Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers it is for deletion here at vote for deletion

Zain 01:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know enough about the topic to vote either way. 13:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang

Thanks so much for your contribution to this article. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! BrandonYusufToropov 12:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Keep an eye on the article Islamophobia. I see a bunch of ant-Islamic POV pushers there. See the talk page OneGuy 01:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK -- many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you can revert more than three times but just be careful that the 4th revert is not within 24 hours. OneGuy 22:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks -- I'll pick this stuff up as I go along. :) Sorry for the error. BrandonYusufToropov 12:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You Muslimm anti-Western anti-Christian extremists really make me sick. In truth you have two religions, one is 'Islam', the other is what may be called the "victimization cult", in which you are obsessed with things like what IslamistGuy called "anti-Islam POV pushers", when in fact it is you who are the true POV warriors (just like mohammedans accuse the West of racism and they themselves claim to be non-racist, but in fact they are the biggest racists on the face of the Earth, such is the nature of the beast.) OneIslamistGuy, you are despicable in my book. "Brandon", you are probably no better. Goodbye.

--An American patriot who opposes your Islamist poison.

Keep on posting these personal insults, dude. Everything you write is being saved in history and someday will be used as evidence of abuse OneGuy 18:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneIslamistGuy: Thanks for the advice. My advice to you would be to stop being so rabidly pro-Islamist/anti-Christian/Anti-Western/Anti-American/Anti-Semitic. -BSveen.

Patriot -- what exactly did I do to you? No reason to get personal. BrandonYusufToropov 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You did nothing to me Brandon. I just think what IslamistGuy wrote above is absolutely laughable. See the comments i slapped together above about the "victimization cult". If you two seriously believe that there is some anti-Muslim conspiracy here, then I got news for ya: There isn't. There are probably more Islamist POV warriors on here than anti-Islamist ones, at least from my experience. Good day to you. -BSveen.

And the specific reasons for calling me "biggest racist" and "probably no better" than "despicable" would be...?BrandonYusufToropov 22:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not call you the biggest racist, and I only called IslamistGuy despicable, because he is (from my experience with him). -BSveen 00:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I quote: "just like mohammedans accuse the West of racism and they themselves claim to be non-racist, but in fact they are the biggest racists on the face of the Earth, such is the nature of the beast." You also called me "probably no better" than "despicable," which is what I was talking about, and I think an apology is in order. BrandonYusufToropov 11:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My opinion of Islam and my opinion of you are not one in the same Brandon. You are probably a decent person, but I oppose the Islamic system and the Islamic religion just as people opposed other tyrannical and repressive systems like communism & fascism in the past. -BSveen.

Well, if you'll pardon my saying so, this is absurd. You can't make remarks about how Muslims are racist and then express surprise when I object to these statements as being directed toward me as a Muslim. If I were misguided enough to go around telling, say, Jewish people that "Jews as a group are racist," I shouldn't then expect to be able to assuage those whom I've slandered by saying, "Relax, it's not my opinion of you as a person that really matters, you're probably a decent person -- it's just Judaism itself that is racist." You were rude and you made a deeply offensive remark about me and my faith, and I resent it. I don't see why you can't simply apologize. Read the whole exchange again from the beginning and see if maybe you were out of line, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 00:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will apologize if you apologize for embracing this poison you call Islam and if you recant your war-obsessed repressive totalitarian and generally horrible "religion" (Islam). If you refuse to apologize, then so do I. I shouldn't have to 'apologize' for deep beliefs you find offensive if you will not do the same.

--An enemy of Islam (BSveen)

Islamophobia again

Your last edit changed "the west" to Europe and America.. Probably better (more precise) but you should be aware that the term is apparently in use in Australia and that the phenomenon also happens elsewhere, (e.g. India is mentioned in the article). I'm wondering if this shouldn't be reflected.

Oh, and on reverts, it's considered good policy to revert less often (except for vandalism), e.g. maximum once a day for one page. If you can come up with a good NPOV text which is obviously being made POV by another's changes (show this on the talk page if it's difficult for others to follow the topic) then you won't need to revert yourself, the rest of us will help you. Mozzerati 16:00, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Many thanks! BrandonYusufToropov 16:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fadak

If you think this article is badly written POV apologetics. Vote for deletion by following the link on this page: The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance OneGuy 04:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Greetings. This is just a reminder to fill out the Edit Summary when you alter articles, so that other contributors can more easily keep track of the changes. If it is a small change, like spelling or wiki links, you can check the minor edit checkbox. Thanks.--A. S. A. 02:50, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

template

template:Islam OneGuy 17:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edits on hadith

Thanks for edits on the hadith article. The section reads much more smoothly now. Zora 19:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Islamofacism" VfD

The VfD had run it's course. The VfD had more votes for keep than any other action. Therefore either no action, or a keep action seemed appropriate, which amount to the same thing. Therefore I closed off the VfD and removed the VfD note. Incidentally it seems that the article is about the term itself rather than the object. What would make it better would be a replacement of a lot of the "Some say" with at least particular instances. An alternative that might also benefit the wikipedia would be a move to "Islamofascism (term)" and replacement with a disambigution page. Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. Could it have gone the other way? I suspect that the majority of admins would have been reluctant to tackle the VfD at all (perhaps I would, had I looked in more depth), I also suspect that any that had would have figured "no consensus". Again it seems that the article was improved as the VfD progressed, which perhaps is why the later votes tended to be "keep". I also think the article is mostly harmless. Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed people may do that, just as they may refer to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or childlove movement, or refer to their pyramid schemes "as seen on TV". The presence or absence of articles from Misplaced Pages is not going to make much difference to those sloppy enough to promulgate or (more to the point) accept such arguments without further thought or investigation. Rich Farmbrough 22:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Title issues

I am not exactly sure specifically what you were inquiring about but I see at least 2 issues. The first issue is that many of the 9/11 controversy articles just need a general clean up to conform to a high standard of article quality. The second issue is more general (applies to other articles outside the 9/11 category too), namely the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theories" in an encyclopedia article's title given the fact the phrase has multiple definitions and one of the definitions is often used to discredit a subject by connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously (even if that subject is literally about people conspiring). If something is worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia is should be taken seriously, any factual conclusion of "dubiousness" should come from the content of an article, not from its title. Basically, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral enough for use in a title I believe. Relatedly, I may have found a title inconsistency between unrelated articles on WP (arguablly equivalently dubious). For example, I have been informed on a talk page that there is a WP policy that article titles should be straightforward, so even the arguably very dubious article "Allegations of links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" was renamed to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but "conspiracy theory" articles do not seem to follow this straightforward title policy. To clear up this inconsistency, I have proposed a title change of 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory to 9/11 domestic complicity theories which is also separately more clear I believe and definitely an improvement (because it avoids a potentially non-neutral phrase), though the new title still is less straightforward than ideal. What do you think and is this what you were inquiring about? See Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory and many other "conspiracy theory" titled articles' talk pages for a discussion. Also at issue is the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks title. zen master T 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Talk:9/11 domestic conspiracy theory page has a title change vote in progress, currently 6 in favor of 9/11 domestic complicty theories and 4 support the original 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. There are however over half a dozen other "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theories" titled articles on wikipedia (I exclude the generic Conspiracy theory article from my title criticism of course, it's only an issue when there exists the potential to discredit a separate subject though the use of a potentially non-neutral phrase). I agree with you that it should be WP policy to immediately remove "conspiracy theory" from an article's title because of NPOV concerns but there are at least a handful of WP users that disagree. More debate and voting will have to take place I suppose. zen master T 20:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There are 2 other title change votes in progress (though less active) Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, there is also a debate on Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. A couple of people are claiming there is no support for declaring "conspiracy theories" too POV for use in a title across all of WP, which is likely not true given the 7 people voting for 9/11 domestic complicity theories. I think this issue needs to be exposed to a larger set of people in order to work toward a larger consensus. zen master T 21:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory

I'm sorry that you feel that the question is too complicated for a divergent proposal, but I would very strongly ask you not to remove other people's proposals until it is clear that they have no support. Thank you for your cooperation. Kelly Martin 20:18, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I however support the removal. I don't believe Kelly Martin can be considered neutral on the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" as an adjective in a title issue. There should be one policy proposal and then a counter argument on why the proposed policy guideline might not be a good idea. zen master T 20:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you have a coherent reason for questioning my neutrality; nor do you have any coherent grounds for objecting to a process that respects the value of other people's contributions and replacing it with one that elevates the value of your own contributions over those of others. Kelly Martin 20:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The fact you appear to be questioning my "coherency" proves you aren't neutral. zen master T 20:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is little chance of prevailing on the issue now and the signal to noise ratio is very low. I really am only continuing debate there to additionally shed light on the logical inconsistencies in pro "conspiracy theory" folks' arguments. Apparently Misplaced Pages is a popularity contest. What plan did you have in mind going forward? zen master T 21:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposals factionalization

I can remove the extraneous proposals but Kelly Martin would likely revert. Shouldn't the person or people bringing a policy change proposal have a say in how their proposal is presented? Either "conspiracy theory" in a title is NPOV or it isn't. Either a phrase used as an adjective is loaded or it isn't. If it is loaded then wikipedia policy should change, if it isn't loaded then the status quo is ok. At the very least Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin can no longer be considered neutral on this issue. How do we go about finding a truly neutral arbiter for the "conspiracy theory" title issue? zen master T 21:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You will rapidly find that there are, by your standards, no neutral arbitrators, if you continue in your practice of alienating everyone who attempts to serve in that role. I stand by my neutrality in this matter, whether or not you accept it. Kelly Martin 21:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, you have repeatedly hinted at accusations against me without providing citations. 3 users disagreed with your inclusion of additional proposals, who is alienating whom? I will now consider it factual to say that you are not neutral until you prove your allegations against me. Everyone should ask themselves why are only pro status quo users agreeing with the way you've organized the policy change debate page? zen master T 21:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As I recall I merely suggested this organization; it was you who chose to implement it. So tell me, why did you choose to use that approach? Kelly Martin 22:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I do not support your third proposal or the need for more than two proposals, I think you should merge the bottom most with SlimVirgin's first proposal especially considering you created the third proposal as a criticism of the first proposal. Instead of creating a new section, please clean up the keep argument. If "conspiracy theory" is not POV and is ok for use in a title then we *do* need to define it properly, this of course fits under the scope of first proposal (pro status quo + end definition ambiguity by reaching on when and where "conspiracy theory" can be used as an adjective). zen master T 22:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It is quite normal for a mediator to suggest compromise proposals for consideration during a discussion. Frankly, your contention that it is impossible for me to offer compromise proposals while serving as a mediator borders on the outrageous. Kelly Martin 22:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon and I disagree that you are neutral or a mediator. Carbonite also disagreed with your extra proposal additions. Everyone should ask themselves why do only pro status quo users agree with what you (Kelly Martin) are doing to the page. I think I was quite right to initially label what you are doing as divide and conquer, I will add now that you ironically do this under the claimed auspicies of being "neutral" or a "mediator". zen master T 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You have successfully convinced me not to bother having anything to do with that discussion. It is painfully obvious that you are not interested in mediation or in fact anything at all except getting your desired outcome. That's fine, but it's not going to lead to consensus, and I suspect you will find that you are going to lose this particular battle. This is a truly sad thing, because you are almost certainly right, but your approach to convincing others of that is so lacking that you actually hurt your position every time you try to advance it. Truly a shame. Kelly Martin 01:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Votes are evil

I don't think votes resolve anything. They certainly don't help create a consensus. My view is that "conspiracy theories" are what we call theories about conspiracies. This is true regardless who's doing the theorising. I don't agree that it's necessarily pejorative. That depends on the context.

The editors in question should make their cases and try to persuade one another. If they cannot, they must accept it and move on. There are lots of things in a wiki you can't put right. Grace Note 03:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Future

What articles/subjects not covered in enough detail did you have in mind exactly? zen master T 21:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing on Jizyah

Even after a number of compromises, the usual people are trying to push POVs on the jizyah article.Yuber 05:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic conspiracy theories page moving

Would it be possible for you to please stop moving this page until consensus is reached? It makes the situation much more confusing when there are redirects getting created all over the place. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Islam-bashing

Brandon, you have every right to remove Islam-bashing statements. This is not the issue. We were discussing whether a section on apostasy is admissible on the Islam article, in principle, obviously without the bashing statements. Certainly you think that Apostasy in Islam can in principle be a legitimate article? Certianly you admit it is pertinent to Islam? The, I argue, it is admissible to have a short paragraph summarizing it or referring to it on the main article. The exact phrasing or length of this paragraph will still be open to discussion, of course. The same goes for Christianity. We won't put "Christian Crusaders killed Arab babies!" on the Christianity article. But there should be a matter-of-fact reference to the Crusades, the Inquisition and related topics on the Christianity article. Call a spade a spade, remove the biased bashing, but leave the informative content intact. dab (ᛏ) 06:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

of course, I don't think we disagree. The editor in question has a very visible anti-Islamic bias, no doubt. I just don't let my judgement of what should be in the article be informed by that fact. And I am of course very open to suggestions for compromise and improved wording. regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Qur'an

Brandon, I agree that the changes are in many ways unfortunate. The author can't be all that familiar with Quranic scholarship. I'm a Quranic sceptic, as you probably know -- I think that the Qur'an is a human document, originally spoken by Muhammad based on his spiritual experiences (which I think genuine) and his own cultural background and biases, and put together in a very ad-hoc manner under Uthman. (Donner's book on Islamic historical writing convinced me that the Wanbrough school is wrong.) It is not a unified or coherent text, IMHO ... but it really can't be usefully compared to the Torah, which evolved over many centuries. The various traditions (memorized or written down) assembled in the Qur'an had only had a few decades to diverge. They are much more of a piece than the Biblical texts. There hasn't been the same degree of editing, either. Uthman and his editors were collectors -- they took everything that the early Muslims had remembered and put it together, variant versions and all. That's my viewpoint, and I think it's fairly close to that of many contemporary scholars. The "multiple authorship" schtick is irritating.

I don't want to revert -- the original treatment of textual criticism was somewhat sketchy and disorganized. But I don't like what's there now, either. I'll try to find time to edit it in the next few days. I'm in a rush, because my daughter is coming home from the summer, after her first year of college, and I have to clean house, cook, fix up her room, AND work on my zendo website.

If you'd like to work over the section yourself, and you feel that you can be FAIR to the sceptical/academic viewpoint, please do. Zora 17:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Put the whole section on a new separate page for Quranic criticism , with a link on Quran page , & leave Quran page for Quran Farhansher 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Because when we start a war of reverts on the main page , the whole article looks like a remenant of war , not giving any coherent view of anything .Farhansher 21:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Farhansher, I'll have to disagree with you here. While it might well be a good idea to have an article on Quranic textual criticism, we do need to touch on the subject in the main article. We can't just tidy it away into its own little article and pretend it doesn't exist. I don't agree with the anon's edits -- they don't really represent the academic history well -- but I don't want the subject removed. At the moment, I don't think it's too long. IF it gets too long, then we'll write a summary and move it out. Zora 03:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions , . It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructed (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islamofascism

Seems to me that the paragraph you've added to Talk:Islamofascism about Klonimus is on the wrong side of the "no personal attacks"; at any rate, it's certainly not helping the level of discourse there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, y'know, when people are acting like dicks, the best way to deal with them is to act differently. And I'm a lot more likely to gently chastise generally pleasant people than generally unpleasant ones, under the assumption that the unpleasant people WANT to be unpleasant and there's no fixing them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

AOA

See your mail

An apology

I am a complete idiot. And I need your guidance. (And no, this is not sarcasm, I mean it.)

Your suggestion that I "sympathize with the terrorists and their aims" because I push back on an issue that YOU raised is deeply insulting to me.

I'm sorry, I should not have implied that you sympathize with terrorists. Please forgive my awkward English. I can't even remember WHAT point I was trying to make at the time, but I guarantee you it was abstract and rhetorical - and had nothing to do with you.

I'd like to remain (or get back to being) on good terms with you, sir. Please give me another chance.

Respectfully,

-- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Koran" dicussion

Hello, I just read the "Koran" dicussion on Ed Poor's talk page. Without going into the specific issues, I would just like to say that whenever someone brings up the argument "anti-americanism" in debate, a little bell rings; it is a sign to me that their critical cognitive functions have been switched off and they are, intellectually speaking, flying on autopilot. Accrediting motives to "anti-americanism", as though it were a formal belief system, is a canard. Speaking as an American who has lived abroad for many years, I am well aware that there are people in the world (myself included) who don't like aspects of America; the culture (or lack thereof), foreign policy of the government, the food, the popular culture, etc, but generally speaking it is a mixture of admiration and dislike; it is not monolithic but complex; it is not a movement or a philosophy but simply a response to certain issues. For me, dismissing criticism of the US as simply a manifestation of "anti-americanism" is intellectual laziness of the highest order. In Europe, people don't accuse each other of "anti-Frenchism" or "anti-Germanism"; it would be considered ludicrous; the concepts don't even exist. I admire your articulate and well-reasoned commentary and wish you all the luck here; Misplaced Pages needs more people like you. -- Viajero | Talk 19:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the link to the TO article. Reading it reminded me to bring this article to your attention, if you have not already seen it: Extraordinary rendition. I reworked and substantially expanded it earlier this year, but additional work, such as on the specific cases (which possibly deserve separate articles) is always welcome. If you haven't already seen it, be sure to read the "Terror by Proxy" article on the New Yorker site; long but essential reading. -- Viajero | Talk 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, I thought I had supplied a link to it at the bottom of the article, but it was a link to an interview with Mayer. Fixed. Here is the correct link: -- Viajero | Talk 10:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, please add Unlawful combatant to your watchlist. As you may know, this is the quasi-legal doctrine that is used to justify the Guantánamo gulag. I did some work on this topic a few months, in a separate article (Illegal enemy combatant), which has now been merged. -- Viajero | Talk 14:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: "Pentagon admits to Guantanamo abuse" So, we are moving from the realm of "allegations" to acknowledged occurences. -- Viajero | Talk 12:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I wanted to draw your attention to this blog entry by Michael Bérubé: "Amnesty International Hits A Nerve", in particular this statement:

Hannah Arendt was very clear that evils done to humans in the modern world -- which is organized politically around the form of the nation-state -- begin by rendering people “stateless,” by moving them outside of any legal structure in which they are recognized as citizens with certain rights or have access to a legal system in which to contest their treatment. The US has headed down that path, not on the scale of 20th century evils, but making use of the same forms.

-- Viajero | Talk 13:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is another article that you might be interested in: "One Muslim's Odyssey to Guantánamo". It will be interesting to see whether European countries like Germany start exerting pressure on the US to release their nationals. -- Viajero | Talk 14:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You asked: Do you suppose there is a current-events-driven article to be developed regarding AI's description of Gitmo as the "gulag of our times"? Or the Bush human rights record in general? Possibly, but I would take tactical considerations into mind. An article like "Bush human rights record" would serve as a POV-magnet and be very hard to maintain in a neutral state. It might be more satisfying and effective to devote your time to incorporating this information in existing articles, such as for example War on terror and Criticisms of War on terrorism. -- Viajero | Talk 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Stylistically, I don't think it is a good to begin an article with "x confirmed" because it presumes too much from the reader; it assmes he/she has been following the matter and knows what happened previously, and that is not a safe assumption. I would like an article like that to be not only relevent today but also intelligible and informative over fifteen years. Do you know what I mean? -- Viajero | Talk 22:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some more background information for that article you have simming in the back of your mind: "Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity". It addresses the some of the legal ramifications of the Bush adminstration's human rights violations. -- Viajero | Talk 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabong

It's actually quite funny watching him claim that he's not Enviroknot. I especially liked when he said "none of us are enviroknot". He refers to himself as "us" now, guess he has a case of multiple personality disorder ;).Yuber 19:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited out the personal components of your comment/section. Please refrain from overly sardonic comments that can be interperted as a personal attack. In light of my comments yesterday on that talk page, I should try to heed that advice myself, it's worth noting. Regards, El_C 01:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ends and means

I just had this conversation with someone else, a young man who calls me "Uncle Ed" in real life. We were discussing abuses performed in the course of church mission work. I told him that I do NOT believe that the end justifies the means.

that the ultimate ends (you believe) an interrogator is pursuing justifies the means (desecrating a Qur'an) he or she uses to pursue that

Perhaps due to my idioticly poor writing skills I inadvertently gave the impression that I am espousing or defending a military policy which would do "bad" things to achieve "good" results. You could do me a favor and quote the the words I wrote from which you gleaned that impression. Then I can amend my remarks - because that's not what I intended.

How could I, after having written Deception in the Unification Church. I may be a doddering old fart, but I'm not that inconsistent. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

...and thanks for fixing the disambig page at Allegations of Qur'an desecration. I was groping for the right word - I knew guards was too specific - but I had writer's block. When I saw the change te military it felt right. It fit so seamlessly I didn't even realize a change had been made, it was like it was there all the time.

That's the ideal I'm looking for, in Misplaced Pages writing: timeless prose. Which everyone can look at and say, yep, that pretty much says it all. And fairly.

Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Department of miscommunication

You wrote:

Considering that what you were engaging in was clearly disruptive, that you have offered neither an explanation nor an apology for your surrealistically high number of page moves, and that you falsely claimed that you and I were collaborating on your final disruptive page move, I'd say no, it's not nearly long enough.

Regarded the parts I've underlined:

• I told Ta Bu on my talk page that I was trying to make the title of the page correspond to the scope of the article topic.
• I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you approved of any of these moves: I hereby absolve you of any "colloborative intent", and you may tell the legal authorities I said so. You did tweak US guards to US military at one point, but I would have been wrong to imply that this constituted an endorsement. I suggest we vote on a permanent page title. Fizzle seems a good man to set up that vote, okay?
• As for apologies, well, if you'd stop misconstruing half my remarks and would ask for clarification more often, there'd be less grounds for you to demand them. Surely a published author knows how hard it is to make complex points clear. Haven't you written a series of Complete Idiot's Guide books? (One is about getting along with difficult people. Surely bashing them publicly and stirring up sentiment against them is not advised in the latter book.)

-- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Formal action as an obstacle to cooperation

You wrote:

If you think I'm atttributing false motives to you, straighten me out. Tell me why you moved the page so frequently with no discussion. I'm listening.

I think you've attributed false motives to me. I think you're trying to get me in trouble. Evidence? You've initiated formal action against me. Does "request for de-admin" ring a bell?

You are either:

• trying to get me to change the way I work around here - so that we can cooperate better on

  v t e Guantanamo Bay detention camps

  Camp Delta -- blanket term used to refer to most of the other camps, including: Camp one -- April 2002 -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp two -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp three -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp four -- more pleasant surroundings for the most compliant detainees Camp five -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp six -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp Five Echo -- "disciplinary block" for "non-compliant" prisoners Camp seven -- aka Camp Platinum, secret location, former CIA "high value detainees" held here Camp No -- secret interrogation center Camp X-Ray -- January - April 2002 -- open air cages with no plumbing Camp Iguana -- originally held child detainees, now holds the men determined to be innocent Camp Echo -- isolation cells, and cells where detainees are held prior to meeting their lawyers Guantanamo psychiatric ward -- opened in March 2003 Strawberry Fields -- black site run by the CIA Penny Lane -- black site run by the CIA

  issues
  • trying to trap me into an admission that will facilitate your quest to keep me from working on

    v t e Guantanamo Bay detention camps

    Camp Delta -- blanket term used to refer to most of the other camps, including: Camp one -- April 2002 -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp two -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp three -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp four -- more pleasant surroundings for the most compliant detainees Camp five -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp six -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp Five Echo -- "disciplinary block" for "non-compliant" prisoners Camp seven -- aka Camp Platinum, secret location, former CIA "high value detainees" held here Camp No -- secret interrogation center Camp X-Ray -- January - April 2002 -- open air cages with no plumbing Camp Iguana -- originally held child detainees, now holds the men determined to be innocent Camp Echo -- isolation cells, and cells where detainees are held prior to meeting their lawyers Guantanamo psychiatric ward -- opened in March 2003 Strawberry Fields -- black site run by the CIA Penny Lane -- black site run by the CIA

    issue at all, so you can make it say only what YOU want.

    I am not trying to trap you into anything. I've never done that to anyone here. Ask around.

    I'm trying to make a good article. Please stop thwarting me. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    An afterthought

    By moved the page so frequently with no discussion did you mean "moved the page without getting your consent first" or "moved the page first, explained later" or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    Admin Noticeboard

    My apologies for distorting your comment. I mis-read it as an erroneous database duplication. I've attempted to repair the damage. Please review my correction and make sure I didn't accidentally change the intent of you original comment. Again, my apologies. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Still want me to go away?

    Personally I believe -- Uncle Ed's admin status should be revoked, or at the very least, that he should be prohibited from working on this article, to which he clearly wants to return.

    Me, too, I wish they'd take away my admin status. Only they'd have to take back my bureaucrat status too, or I could just re-sysop myself! Ha, ha. (Yes, I think I'm hilarious. ;-)

    And I HAVE BEEN prohibited from working on this article. Ta Bu said to take a break. It's been like two whole days now; I'm confined to talk pages. Okay, it's more like house arrest than an ArbCom Ruling, but it's just as effective. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

    Regarding your request for mediation regarding a conflict with Ed Poor

    I have asked Ed Poor if he will accept mediation with me as the mediator. If he accepts, we'll all take this to email. --Improv 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Yusuf, I think we've concluded our mediation successfully. Agreed? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Pages: user vs. talk

    I only just now realized that I was on you USER page. There was so much talk on it that I failed to notice that it was the USER page and not the TALK page.

    I was replying to TALK - but without paying attention to where that talk was. The custom is that people may control their own USER pages with few limits. Now that I realize you don't want replies to talk on your user page, I can respect that.

    It wasn't deliberate. I simply didn't realize where i was. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

    renamed

    I restored the article to its original location. Although I was reluctant to protect it, I will do so if it is moved again without discussion. -- Viajero | Talk 18:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Some disturbing news: "The US war with Iran has already begun" -- Viajero | Talk 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    your RFA

    hm, can you comment on how Ed's nomination came about? Were you discussing this off-site? I have been supporting you, and I do think both you and Ed Poor are good editors, so that I took the nomination as an impressive show of good faith, but I am unsure if I am missing something, and people with even less context will be left completely in the air. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Can you say Quid Pro Quo? We need a Senate investigation! Just kidding :) I think BYT will be a fine admin NoSeptember

    I hope you don't mind, in your response to one of the questions on your RfA you linked to Improv which I changed to User:Improv. Tomer 16:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

    
    sorry man but considering all the facts I had to vote oppose to your RFA, please note that this is nothing personal, it's just that I feel uncomfortable voting support with you having unresolved issues with other users. As stated in the RFA vote I think that someday you'll make a great administrator but now is just not the time. You have potential, never doubt that. Jtkiefer 00:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    
    hi BYT — seem by comment on RFA. I do think now that it may be better to have you settle your dispute first, and let the dust settle. Feel free to ask me anytime if you want to be nominated again. Regards, dab (ᛏ) 09:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hey BYT. Sorry, I had to go mild oppose this month. See my comments connected to my vote. In another couple months, I have little doubt I'll be happy to vote "support". That said, if your VfA ends up failing, I think there's a lot of valuable information there for you: things to look into improving, if you're interested, prior to your next RfA. Good luck, and I look forward to more of your good work. Tomer 19:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    theology

    btw, re your website, it may well be that Islam is compatible with the teachings of Jesus, but I have my doubts whether the teachings of Jesus could have been compatible with Islam, i.e. the assertion that the archangel Gabriel would descend to a member of the Ismaelites with urgent messages from yhwh Himself. But clearly, of course, the trinity thing so scoffed at by Muhammad is 4th century stuff, and hardly integral to Christianity at all. dab (ᛏ) 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    well, ex silentio you can pretty much claim Jesus was compatible with Sai Baba or Rael. I do think Q suggests J is the messiah, only is the notion that messiah=God not present at that time. But the messiah would have been a Jewish matter, and whatever the Arabs were up to, I do not think Jesus could have been bothered. I'm not trying to start a dispute with you, btw, this is just meant as a friendly comment in passing. regards, dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    subpages in user namespace

    You wrote in the RfA:

    I was not sure how to post a separate page in my own archive that would point to this material.

    If I understand this correctly, you would have liked to created a separate page in your user namespace for that material. If so, it is quite easy. Just append a slash to your username and create a file, like this:

    User:BrandonYusufToropov/My stuff
    

    Alternately, you can type it in the navigator bar of your web browser:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/User:BrandonYusufToropov/My_stuff
    

    For example, when your Talk page gets too big, you will want to archive it. So, add this to the top of the page:

    User talk:BrandonYusufToropov/archive 1
    

    or just this:

    /archive 1
    

    hit page preview, then open that red link in a new window. Then you can move text from your talk page there. The slash is a kind of shorthand; the system knows it should be a subpage of the current page. This applies to all pages in Misplaced Pages.

    HTH, -- Viajero | Talk 16:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    You're welcome (barnstar)

    You're welcome. I also think you'd make a good admin, lets see how that turns out. --Anonymous editor 21:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    Poll at Talk:Terrorism

    I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg 22:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Human Rights Record of the United States

    I think this is an article that you might be interested in working on. Cheers! -- BDAbramson 03:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

    ==

    v t e Guantanamo Bay detention camps

    Camp Delta -- blanket term used to refer to most of the other camps, including: Camp one -- April 2002 -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp two -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp three -- open air cages, but with plumbing Camp four -- more pleasant surroundings for the most compliant detainees Camp five -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp six -- permanent facility modeled after a bureau of prison maximum security facility Camp Five Echo -- "disciplinary block" for "non-compliant" prisoners Camp seven -- aka Camp Platinum, secret location, former CIA "high value detainees" held here Camp No -- secret interrogation center Camp X-Ray -- January - April 2002 -- open air cages with no plumbing Camp Iguana -- originally held child detainees, now holds the men determined to be innocent Camp Echo -- isolation cells, and cells where detainees are held prior to meeting their lawyers Guantanamo psychiatric ward -- opened in March 2003 Strawberry Fields -- black site run by the CIA Penny Lane -- black site run by the CIA

    ==

    Hey, I just realized I haven't seen you around gitmo lately. I think I better hold off editing (or even discussing) there, until you've had a chance to weigh in. I need your perspective on Islamic culture, Muslim values, and so on. Otherwise I'm liable to skew the perspective of the article accidentally. Sincerely -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

    Jihad

    Brandon, why are you crossing out stuff in your talk:Jihad discussion? Just wondering. Yours, Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:35 (UTC)

    Oh, sorry it was user:Kurita77. I reverted this. You have every right to report this vandalism of your comment if it continues. Once again, thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

    
    

    RfA

    Sorry that it didn't work out this time; I'm sure that it will at some point in the future. You can take some satisfaction in knowing that a durprising number of those voting against were known vandals, sock-puppets, trolls, and edit-warriors — so you've obviously been doing something right in order to get them so scared. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)