Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 5 June 2006

Something to talk about?

Old Stuff

Copyright

I've removed two copyrighted images from your userpage. Copyrighted images are used in articles under a 'fair-use' claim, unfortunately, under wp policy, fairuse claims cannot be extended to userspace. See WP:FUC for details. --Doc 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Francis Charteris

Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem - interesting chap! Given the other Francis Charterises (the Earls of Wemyss) I have put him back as the Colonel... - ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.G. Tatchell

I see you have added the {{POV}} tag again. Last time you added this, you did not explain why. I expect to see a rationale for adding the tag on the article talk page without delay, say by mid-day today, or I will remove the tag. David | Talk 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

It might be better for someone else to take a look at it now that I've asked David to remove the protection. I'll wait for a bit to see what the response is. It probably should be protected as I see what looks like 3RR violations, and it would be better to protect than to start blocking, but the question now is whose version to protect on. SlimVirgin 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Islamophobia Images

Irishpunktom, what are the origins and who is the copyright holder who has irrevocably released all rights to the two new images you've added to the Islamophobia article? Netscott 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see well if you're not inclined to provide such information then I'll be sure to tag them for deletion due to rights concerns, etc. Netscott 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Much like how you expressed good faith concerns over the MANIFESTO article before, I too have my own concerning these images. Are you surprised? Netscott 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll be sure to take the necessary steps to ensure that these new images do not remain on Misplaced Pages under their current licensing tags. Netscott 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dislike is a serious mischaracterization of my feelings on this matter. Regardless, it appears that a fellow editor concurs with my tagging. Netscott 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions listed on Misplaced Pages:Confirmation of permission#When permission is confirmed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamikaze

Someone beat me by a few seconds - I was going to object to prod as well. Here's what my edit summary would have been: "object to prod. term is, article is not. Should have read talk page before prodding." Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in no way offended, though I tend to err on the side of over-notification. No worries. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Colonel Francis Charteris, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Image:Charteris.jpeg

I noticed that this image, which is on the Main Page (congrats) has a copyright symbol showing, but there is no explanation about this. Do you know where the "© NPGD1263.jpg" on the image comes from or its significance? You migh want to follow-up on this. Sorry, I do not have a W account; I am just trying to help. -- 71.6.14.2 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I noticed that too. Presumably it is an image from the National Portrait Gallery. Quite how they maintain copyright on a scan of an 18th century drawing I don't know. But I see someone has cropped the image to remove the tag, following some discussion in Image talk:Charteris.jpeg. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 10:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

7/7 Truth Movement

Interested? - http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedians_of_the_7/7_Truth_Movement - If so please ask those on here whom else you think would be interested. Thank you and keep up the great work.

Mail

Bro, you wanted to mail me something before, but i couldnt fix my mail. Im curious about what you wanted to say... --Striver 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA

Template:Islam

Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments brother, I really appreciate them.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New Islamophobia section

Irishpunktom, would you respond to this section of talk on Islamophobia? Thanks. Netscott 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeting Irishpunktom, in your editing of this article (and on Misplaced Pages in general) please be aware of the following Misplaced Pages guidelines: Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms. Thanks. Netscott 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem in your editing on this article is that it frequently falls afoul of the above guidelines. The Avoid neologisms guidelines are in place toward NPOV ends. Netscott 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but my good faith reasoning for the AfD was due to the simple fact that the Misplaced Pages is becoming the defacto primary source for the defining the term which is very counter to WP:NOR. This truth is further evidenced by this link. The way that the article stands now after your latest edit on it doesn't maintain Misplaced Pages's neutrality from it because of the article's actual use of the term which Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms is particularly clear about not doing. Netscott 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you're edit warring with Karl Meier now. You both should stop immediately while bearing in mind User:Tony Sidaway's warning to both of you. Netscott 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What has inclined you to inform me that WP:NEO is not policy (as though I didn't know it)? Netscott 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enforcing it but it is perfectly logical for editors like myself (particularly when dealing with a neologism like "islamophobia") to be citing it in my efforts to maintain neutrality on its use and the article about it. Netscott 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How would you feel about asking User:Tony Sidaway to help us come to some sort of agreement on this issue? I'm becoming really inclined to ask for his assistance. Netscott 09:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because User:Tony Sidaway is already somewhat informed on these issues and has shown no bias in his warnings to you and Karl. Netscott 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in for page protection while we engage the dispute resolution process. Netscott 09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Something like Islamophobia/Dispute resolution version? Netscott 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny that both you and User:Karl Meier don't want User:Tony Sidaway involved. That almost makes me think that he'd be the perfect person. I actually have had no direct involvement with Tony Sidaway myself. Netscott 09:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know the the insinuating you're doing that I might be racist/islamophobic really reaks of mean-spiritedness. You must absolutely be aware of the numerous positive beneficial (towards NPOV ends) edits that I've made in terms of Islam related subjects. Don't you ask yourself why a person might do that? Netscott 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're meaning a page for the acutal resolution process. Yes, that sounds good... I'm still wondering about my questions just above here. Netscott 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I revert User:Karl Meier's removal of this information myself if my motives weren't based upon good faith? Netscott 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget about the whole User:Germen affair that I cracked... even User:Anonymous editor will back me up on that. Netscott 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your calling User:Karl Meier racist based upon the sole evidence of one link is not fair and additionally is completely out of accord with WP:NPA. I 100% agree with you about that particular link but do you honestly think it is fair to automatically refer to someone by the very derogatory and incriminatory term "racist" based solely upon that?... Regardless even if you were right in your accusations (which again I think is highly, highly doubtful) Misplaced Pages specifically prohibits editors from using such terminology when discussing other editors. Netscott 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit here I believe was the first mention of racism, no? Netscott 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

No, I have not yet filed... I am about to though... what with the 3RR report, your talk page and Karl's talk page.. I've been just a tad busy. Getting to it now. Netscott 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm reading up on the processes... I should have a request filed shortly. Netscott 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my plan as well.. but we're not the only ones editing here... hehe. Netscott 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we need to agree on what the dispute actually consists of. My contention is that actual utilization of the term islamophobia on Misplaced Pages needs to be avoided including on the very article about it. Please explain your view here. Netscott 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Well, I disagree. I believe while in general that contention is a good one when dealing with neologisms, as Islamophobia has entered the mainstream, to such a degree that various governments have set up methods of combatting it, it shuld be utilised. --Irishpunktom\ 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok good I just wanted to be clear on that... this in indeed a very big difference on both our parts and without dispute resolution I'm not quite sure how we could come to a compromise about it as to me this is fundamental difference of view. Netscott 11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Of the four options presented here is there one that seems to make more sense to you than the others? I'm thinking mediation. Netscott 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Yes, the yellow card has been thrown and the ref is reviewing the footage. Any way that you can be pushed into dispute resolution any faster? In the interim, comments like this should be avoided. I know that you're firm in your belief, but it is possible to be right and be blocked at the same time. - brenneman 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah, that wasn't strong enough. "Quit it or else." There, that's better. I recomend that you avoid all mention of he-who-shall-not-be named outside of dispute resolution and Netscott's talk, and that you be circumspect there. An attack is in the eye of the beholder, and we must err on the side of caution. There is nothing to be gained in the short term from banging on about this, so, um, "Quit it or else." - brenneman 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Tom, you've been blocked for a WP:3RR violation on the Islamophobia article: . There were a number of other complex reverts I didn't bother documenting. When you return, please attempt to work with other editors. Jayjg 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

You might be interested in the Article for deletion on the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Freagra

Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --Irishpunktom\ 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. B'fhéidir go mbeidh WP:3O nó WP:RFC in ann cabhrú libh. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Islamophobia

Irishpunktom, please review this request for mediation and agree to it. Thanks. Netscott 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and neutrality

Irishpunktom, going over some articles that I observe, I noticed an attempted move made on your part for the article Islamic extremist terrorism. You may be surprised to know but counter to my previous way of thinking, I'm now actually inclined to agree with you on your move. I would sooner vote for Islamic extremist militancy though. To me this makes sense in the same way that the title September 11, 2001 attacks makes sense. What is funny is how your inclination towards neutral point of view in that regard is virtually identical to my inclination towards neutral point of view in regards to the utilization of the word "islamophobia". I am confident that there are many others who share these views and so what I'm wondering is how we might be able to utilize these similiarities to truly benefit the Misplaced Pages project in terms of neutrality? I am inclined to think that if we support eachother's views in this regard the project will improve. Netscott 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Muslim flat-earth theories

Tom, I wish you wouldn't keep adding that factoid re "Muslim scientists calculated the earth's diameter as ...." The only point seems to be bragging. I don't see that any individual is made bigger or better by making claims of past achievement for a group to which he or she belongs. It's like graffiti artists tagging, except that in this case it's the past, not walls and subway cars. Is anyone any bigger or better if his "tag" appears all over the place? Is anyone any better if he identifies with a sports team and his team wins? Is anyone any more important if members of his religion (a religion with millions of members) did thus and such?

Those weren't "Muslim" scientists, they were scholars living in Baghdad under the Abbasid caliphs, more than a thousand years ago. Either they belong to nobody, or everybody. Yes, let's all take pride in the great things HUMAN BEINGS have done, and learn caution and self-examination by contemplating the horrible things humans have done too. Zora 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

Who's the stalker now? I will either strike the comments out or remove them... which do you think makes more sense? Netscott 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to know, do you really want to be editing in support of an editor (Resid Gulerdem) who has independently been repetitively blocked on the Misplaced Pages of his own native tongue? Myself, I try to choose my "battles" wisely. Netscott 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well by all means edit in support of him and watch your own reputation be tarnished and watch his negativity and disruptiveness further influence Misplaced Pages. Don't forget that the initiator of this latest series of events concerning Resid's disruptiveness was initiated by a fellow of his, the Turkish User:Azate. And as far as good faith is concerned you are rather asisine in making such comments when you initiated such demonstrations. Netscott 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm determining from your commentary that in fact the comments should just be in effect "reverted" out (through deletion) rather than struck out. I'd be fine with doing that. Netscott 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You should know as well that much like your utilization of the word "racist" when referring to User:Karl Meier referring to me as a stalker or wikistalker qualifies as a personal attack. Your continued mischaracterization of myself is inclining me to follow User:Karl Meier's example and post a WP:PAIN notice which actually might have an effect in terms of curbing your repeated demonstrations of bad faith. Netscott 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should do the same and start with Talk:Fethullah Gülen. What you are now fully demonstrating in your talk page commentary is that admin User:Aaron Brenneman's WP:PAIN warning above fell on "deaf" eyes. Netscott 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Labeling my actions as intimidation is another perfect example of your bad faith Irishpunktom. Being that you are the only individual who has has ever accused me of bad faith on Misplaced Pages and being that the same cannot be said for yourself I'm inclined to doubt your estimation of my character while I don't doubt my own regarding yourself. Netscott 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys! This seems to be lasting forever. Please make a real effort to sort it out because it is bothering. I'd be ready to help you in case you need it. Cheers -- Szvest 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom! Any comment from your side about mediating? Please let me know mate. Cheers -- Szvest 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Any news man? -- Szvest 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes. Azate 17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're edit warring, again

Irishpunktom, from looking at the history of Islam in Denmark it is clearer and clearer that you really have no qualms about edit warring. Why do you think you've been warned about this (particularly in regards to who you're edit warring with)? Hello! Dispute resolution, anyone? Netscott 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom , you tell me if you need a friendly hand. --Striver 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism to Islamist terrorism

You might want to comment on an idea of Szvest's here. Netscott 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, i suggest that you discuss the points you are disagreeing with at the article's talk page. That's the proper manner. I don't want to see anyone of you blocked recklessly because we can't discuss things. Please make use of the talk page.

Re your answer of today about my mediation. Could you please tell me about your concerns. I need a honest opinion about the conflict between you and Scott. Cheers -- Szvest 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for the details you provided. I'll have a look at them this afternoon and see what i'd suggest to sort this out between yourselves. Cheers -- Szvest 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

greetings

Greetings. quick non-encyclopedic question. Have you read On Late Style, and if so, what are your thoughts?--Irishpunktom\ 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to buy and read this book next weekend. Thanks.

Siddiqui 05:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

sure...

I only read the links you posted which were the BBC one which said his injuries were not life threatening, and ABC which just said a guy was shot. Just checking agrees with BBC. Feel free to update if you see something else though :) Kurando | ^_^ 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you an anti-Semite?

Well, according to SirIsaacBrock you belong to "a small group of anti-Semites" on Misplaced Pages because you have received a certain barnstar. He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn

then i guess i must be a anti semite as well... i did'nt know i was one, but considering i have that barnstar, the evidence is conclusive :( --Striver 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that this user has been blocked indefinitely.Timothy Usher 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hujum

I have a copy of Northrop's book, although I haven't read it yet as I'm more interested in the Tsarist period. I'll have a look at it though and see if I can add anything to the page. I haven't read On Late Style - I have a lot a sympathy for Said's politics, but I consider his ideas about Orientalism fairly absurd (as you might guess from my recent additions to his page on the critical response to the book). Orientalism is a set text for a course I sometimes teach in Imperial History but otherwise I don't go out of my way to read his work because I just don't think it's very relevant for historians (not if you actually believe in History as a discipline, anyway). On Late Style got some pretty shocking reviews. Sikandarji 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier

Please don't put the reference to Karl Meier on your user page again. It's a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

Since you previously showed interest in the former proposed policy Wikiethics, I'd like to inform you about this deletion review. Raphael1 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Gotta wait an hour or so? Just wait twenty-four; I've blocked you for edit warring. Tom Harrison 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)