Misplaced Pages

Extraordinary rendition

Added notes and still reading. Lotsa repeats in article. Trying to cleanup further.--Tomtom9041 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency

I was unable to identify the user name His excellency is allegedly using as a sock from the information you provided. Fred Bauder 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

I've blocked you for 3 hours; your mass messaging has crossed the line into harassment. Take a break, and come back when you've cooled off. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding edit: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --InShaneee 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot act civil, YOU will be dealt with accordingly, like it or not. --InShaneee 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not biting the newbies and allowing them to do as they please are two very different things. --InShaneee 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this: You have now been blocked for making personal attacks. --InShaneee 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For how long? you forgot say! Hypnosadist 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS have you actually read this InShaneee.

Remedies If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider following the dispute resolution process. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks per the guideline WP:RPA; however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently. From a recent arbitration committee finding-of-fact:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks should be reported at WP:PAIN.

I've removed your personal attack above and extended your block. Those who cannot be respectful will not be allowed to disrupt the work of others. --InShaneee 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And you've warned by others and arb com not to delete "personal attacks" on peoples talk pages, PUT IT BACK!Hypnosadist 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS you have constantly failed to be respectful to me, youve been threating and upperty.Hypnosadist 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Complaints about Islam and Slavery

1)No mention of the 25 million minimum people enslaved under the rule of islam! 2)No Mention that Mohammed owned slaves. 3)No mention that Mohammed raped his concubine in accordance with Islamic law. 4)No metion that slavery continued utterly unabaited for 1400 years under islamic law. Hypnosadist 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hypnosadist,

I will add point #2 to the article as I do have an academic source for it. Please find academic source for other claims and I'll add them to the article. Thanks. --Aminz 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, what you need to do is provide authoritative sources for your assertions (#1/#3/#4 - although from looking at them some do contain some OR IMO). please ensure that whatever sources provided are in accordance with WP:RS (particular attn is recommended for noting about false authorities). if the sources given conflict with established sources like EoI, Schimmel and Lewis, then we need to agree in what way exactly such assertions are to be mentioned. thank you. ITAQALLAH 06:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH i must appolagise for my behavior to you the other day it was uncalled for. Below are some of the sources;

1)Paul Bairoch suggests a figure of 25 million African people subjected to the Arab slave trade, as against 11 million that arrived in the Americas from the transatlantic slave trade. Paul Bairoch, Mythes et paradoxes de l'histoire économique, (1994). See also: Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes (1993) PS this is the figure for the trade of people from africa to Arabia. There is also the trade in white slaves from Albania,Bulgaria, Chechnia etc.

3)is Maria al-Qibtiyya, and by rape i mean it in the modern waestern concept of "Lack of FULL concent".

4)i'm looking for info on the slave markets shut down by the british at the end of WW1 to 1923 ish, ie in Ottoman controled area's that were "given" to the british.

If sources (that are notable) conflict then both sides are mentioned with whom is makeing the assertions so that readers can make up their minds. OK bye bye i'm off for my first holiday in 10 years! so i won't be posting for a few days.Hypnosadist 09:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam Gadahn, Robert Fisk, and the "Invitation to Islam"

Hi there. I stumbled into this issue by accident, not realizing (naively) that anyone would take issue with the relevance of Adam Gadahn praising Robert Fisk and George Galloway by name in an Al-Qaeda video. Only after I made an edit including that information in Fisk's article (under "Praise") did I notice the minor revert war involving mainly yourself and Irishpunktom.

In replacing the information, I've made what I think is a fair compromise, including reliable sources and a counterbalance of Bin Laden characterizing Fisk as "neutral". I'm not sure if you're still interested in pursuing this issue, but if so, I just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with you that the information should be there, and for my part I'm willing to take the issue to mediation/arbitration if necessary. Hiddekel 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Friend of chavs???

Hi, nice to see you on chav. "Friends of chavs" in the Misplaced Pages sense are editors who use the page to declare that named individuals are chavs - rather like "friends of gays". I on the other hand have friends, family and neighbours who might be labelled with the chav stereotype but are actually very nice. Re Persecution of heathens is South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal relevant? Or the whole issue of so called "satanic child abuse"? Itsmejudith 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in a mixed area with lots of net curtain twitchers. So I have to assert the right of a teenager to walk down the road in head to toe Pineapple, even if she does look ridiculous, without the local Neighbourhood Watch vigilante squad coming out in force. Peace. Itsmejudith 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ranking of military strength

Hi. Do you know of any sources that give the ranking of different countries' military strength? I wonder which countries follow the US. What I am looking for is a "top ten" or something, idealy detailing both conventional and nuclear capability. Dianelos 08:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

They've decided to keep The Quran and science, could you help with that? Arrow740 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of heathens

Hi, you might like to look at Sami people for some material that might be relevant. Itsmejudith 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamas

Please stop Rev my edits in the "2006 Israel-Gaza conflict" section of Hamas if you have a dispute about the Humman Rights bit with someone else, fine! but please don't Revert my factual section along with it. Kindly restore this section. Thanks. Yas121 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

The topic is the Quran! The capter is called Interpretation of the Quran! But some wikipedians do not allow me to quote all necessary quotes. You can not compromise the Quran.DAde 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Those fascists

If you see the third paragraph, it says "In recent weeks, intelligence experts have been warning about possible attacks by militants angry at Manila's support for the US-led "war on terror".

Personally I think it was stupid, childish, anti-sharia, & counter-productive . Those dead people had nothing to do with American or Philpine policies, neither will their death change anything, other than causing more hate . I hope muslims learn to strategize, & not to get provoked at every "cracker" that is thrown upon them, & definitely not react in a counter-productive, un-islamic manner . Cheers! F.a.y. 02:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jizya

Truthpedia is at it again on Jizya. Jayjg 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ghazni

Hi There,

Just created this article, Battle of Ghazni during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could fix up anything which is incorrect or add to this battle or link this battle to other articles so that it generates traffic. Thankyou. Mercenary2k 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy solstice/Yule

A bit belated, but knowing your interest in Paganism (although perhaps your interest is just to defend adherents against persecution), I thought I'd wish you a good solstice and Yuletide. If not appropriate, please just transfer the wishes to Christmas or the season generally. Look forward to reading your edits in the New Year. Itsmejudith 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

The article was all in the past tense, making it look like dhimmitude is over, no longer part of Sharia, no longer applied in Saudia Arab, Iran, and Yemen, etc. I fixed it up, but I'm expecting some fierce resistance from the wikijihadis. Maybe you could keep an eye on it. Arrow740 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Not sure where you wanted me to comment, but my dealings were limited to the AN/I page where I was requesting assistance and that person did not offer any, just threats and refusals to hear my side of the story. It was quite disrespectful in my eyes as I tried to explain further and they just threatened that if I did not conform to their decision I would be blocked, and if I continued to attempt to tell me side I would be blocked. Censorship and shutting people up is not a proper way to handle things in my opinion and further their rudeness and "do as I say" attitude was very unwelcoming. I was almost prepared to leave the project but I remembered my dealings with other admins like CBD and Thatcher131 that I respect highly and follow their calls because of that. --NuclearZer0 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience with InShaneee is probably best summarized by my comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/InShaneee#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. He was basically unwilling to reconsider his actions when confronted by other users and administrators (which I consider a behavioural essential for anyone), hypocritically violated WP:WHEEL, and used his admin powers to try evading an RfC on himself. --tjstrf talk 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What'd he do to try and evade an RfC? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was how I perceived it. He blocked you when you were announcing your intention to file one. Oh, there was also this mess (scroll to bottom of page), where he was edit warring with another administrator over whether the other admin could list an article on WP:PARA or not. You'd probably want to ask User:Moriori about that one, since I still can't figure out why the hell that was even an issue between them. --tjstrf talk 08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the section for responses to your inquiries about User:InShaneee. I wrote up an outside view on a couple of disputed blocks in his RfC, so that will contain my analysis as of then. I don't believe I have intersected with him much since that time, except for letting him know that he was being discussed on ANI once or twice (such as last week with a block involving a dispute over a project tag), so I don't have too much else to say, except that I hope things can be worked out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I probably was just as much at fault in my case as User:InShaneee. He is associated in some official capacity with the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal. He put the project tag on the talk page of Spiritualism, a religious history article that I have worked a lot on. The tag contained a rating, saying that the article was B-class. I wanted to know exactly why it received that rating, so I wrote a message on the talk page that the rating would be removed until some helpful comments accompanied the rating. InShaneee returned to restore the rating, without leaving any comments, and I removed them again, writing on his talk page that he read the message on the article talk page. He responded angrily, or so it seemed to me, and refused to provide any comments. Eventually another administrator on the paranormal project User:J.smith was able to explain things to me--that the rating really didn't mean anything and that if I wanted feedback I could always ask for a peer review. So things calmed down. One funny thing, though, afterwards he looked at things I had recently edited, and went after one of those, putting a delete tag on it. I was OK with the delete tag (I had earlier put one on the article myself), but it did seem kind of sneaky and vindictive. Anyway, I'm not mad at him and I don't expect to run across him again--he mostly works on popular culture topics, such as comic books. Anthon.Eff 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hypnosadist, I am concerned that you appear to be trying to recruit a mob rather than helping to resolve a dispute. I am going to remove your boilerplate user talk posts. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Given that there was an RFC regarding Inshanee's conduct as an administrator, I think the key question would be whether Inshanee and the other RFC participants took the comments to heart. In other words, Hypnosadist, I hope that you will look for evidence of Inshanee being civil in the conduct of his admin duties after the RFC, as well as for evidence of incivility. If there's improvement, particularly marked improvement, after the RFC, then it worked the way it was supposed to. (Similarly, given that there was what looks like a a substantial opinion that the block was justified, but uncivil, Link to the Past has also taken the RFC to heart and quit the conduct that led to the block in the first place). Thanks, TheronJ 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, that particular RFC concerning InShaneee's uncivil behaviour towards Link to the Past revealed that that particular problem was part of a pattern of behaviour. I think there is resistance to any discussion that calls into question the massive powers of admins, without any accountability. It goes to the heart of the fundamental problems in Misplaced Pages. I fear that this is the reason why admins are trying to stifle this debate about InShaneee. I am watching this carefully to see whether Hypnosadist is give the chance to allow InShaneee to be judged by his peers and deal with admin abuse.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the reason why we have dispute resolution is normally so that we can fix problems without Arb Comm involvement. If the RFC made Inshanee a better administrator, then, IMHO, the problem is solved, and good for everyone, complainants, busybodies, and Inshanee him/herself, for making Misplaced Pages a better place. If the RFC revealed problems that Ishanee hasn't corrected, then maybe an RFA is required. I'm just a busybody myself, but if I were on ArbComm, the two questions I would most like to see answered are (1) has Hypnosadist made a serious attempt to resolve the problems constructively; and (2) has Inshanee made a serious attempt to resolve any problems that arose. In this respect, evidence of actions before the RFC are interesting background, but they don't answer the key questions. Thanks, TheronJ 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "has Hypnosadist made a serious attempt to resolve the problems constructively". The limit of my dealings with Inshaneee are; he banned me for incivility and not respecting him then he called me a douche. Then we had an RfC(which was started by someone else) and nothing happened, and now TheronJ (93 theron) says that just gave Inshanee a clean sheet. When i have tried to talk to inshaneee he has banned me so now i don't bother.Hypnosadist 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just offering advice, which is what I understood you were asking for with regard to a possible Inshanee RFC. You can obviously take it for whatever you think it's worth. I had never given any thought to Inshanee before I saw your postings on Brad's and Nuclear's talk pages, so I don't know the background beyond what was written in the RFC and in your evidence section above. What do you want to get out of this? Would (1) Inshanee not calling more people "douches", (2) an apology, or (3) only de-sysopping satisfy you? My personal feeling is that RFCs are a method of dispute resolution - if it's at all possible, everyone involved in one should try to resolve their dispute. If possible, I would like to see that happen. TheronJ 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for snapping Therion but if i did not believe in a cabal then this current set of event would make me believe in the Cabal. For a start a judgement against Inshaneee so he knows he did wrong would be a start.Hypnosadist 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just don't.

I strongly urge you not to reinsert your posts to user talk pages. There is ample past precedent for removal of such postings. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Please be careful what you call "vandalism". See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Specifically, the edit you made here was summarized as "rv vandalism", but this was not vandalism. Calling other people's edits vandalism is unhelpful and can lead to unnecessary conflict. Friday (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message seeking information regarding the behaviour of the admin InShaneee. This has now been deleted by another admin and I have been instructed not to revert this deletion. However, I am an interested party as I have reponded to InShaneee's RfA. Consequently, I would be happy to receive any information from you regarding your endeavours. As I am requesting this, any such message cannot be regarded as either spam or canvassing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Inshanee's arb com

I'm going to put my primary case together over the next few days, then i'll start it then contact every user in Inshaneee's admin talk pages as well as Inshaneee himself. Hopefully this is the right thing to do (one of the admins reading this please tell me if its not), although i think its spamming. Thanks to the people who have supported me.Hypnosadist 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, don't send it to everyone on his talk page. You should just send notification to the parties named in the dispute. Usually that would be Inshanee, you, and anyone else heavily involved in the disagreement. Note that all 'parties' to the arbitration may be subject to rulings from the ArbCom. --CBD 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not allowed to contact people to find if they have a dispute with Inshaneee, and as this is about his attitude as an admin to the many people he deals with. There are no other parties involved because if i contact them my content is deleted because i did not send out enough messages . Make up your minds!Hypnosadist 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. We are not the Borg. Minds differ. However, standard practice for arbitrations is to keep the parties limited only to those individuals highly involved in the dispute. ArbCom procedures also require that all such parties be notified with a message like the one below. Notifying other people, beyond the parties, may result in accusations of 'spamming' or 'trying to gang up on someone'. Sending out mass notices which include people on both sides of a dispute is sometimes accepted, but in other instances still gets booted on 'spam' grounds. Placing a notice in a public place, especially somewhere that the dispute has already been discussed, is usually acceptable. All that said... I wouldn't worry about it. If there is something that arbitration cases aren't it is 'subtle and easily overlooked'. If you file it they will come. --CBD 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly words and the sage advice. "If you file it they will come." LOL! Hypnosadist 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with the wording for the not spam i have to send out when i start the arb com, how about this;

Inshaneee the Admin

A Request for arbitration about Inshaneee and his actions as an admin has been filed by Hypnosadist. If you want to have an imput into this case go there. sig

Hope that is neutral enough for you admins.Hypnosadist 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from a non-Admin. KP Botany 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not directly involved in any of this, but I did read about it on the Admins' "Noticeboard". More power to you, Hypnosadist! DavidCBryant 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to talk page comment

Yes, I think that is a completely reasonable request. Hypno, I apologize for my use of language with you during our encounter several months ago. I was going through a rough period IRL, and I let my frustrations get the best of me. That language is innapropriate, doubly so on wiki. I'm sorry. I've certainly learned from that period, and I hope we can both move on from it. --InShaneee 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Thanks, Hypnosadist, for going one step further than anyone had the right to ask you when you were thoroughly pissed off. Thanks for actually listening to what some people were trying to say to you, when no one seemed to be listening to what you were saying. KP Botany 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Islamist Terrorism

Hi there, hows it going?

I just wanted to thank you for all your input on the current naming debate on Islamist Terrorism, especially for your expressing your concerns about what might happen in the event of altering the name.

Ideally I'd like to build some sort of consensus which will accomodate the ideas of both sides. This is obviously not as straightforward as it sounds, but I believe it can be done, and in doing so the quality and stability of both the article and the subject will be increased significantly. This is because, as you pointed out, there is a risk of information being removed unfairly, a new - seperate - article is created to deal with the same subject, and the same problems reccur.

But, by coming to a common agreement about the article's name, we can make sure that the struggle over POV is ended. Furthermore, by selecting a name that deals with the full subject of radical Muslims committed to waging a violent Jihad against all things they deem to be "unislamic", we can also make sure that everything - whether it be terrorism, ideology and key figures/groups - is included and cannot be tampered with unduly.

Believe me, I understand your concerns. But by turning the article into a tug of war, I think it will do less to improve your ability to express valid viewpoints than by productive dialogue. I don't take it upon myself as an outsider to justify the mess that Muslim societies are in, but as an academic I believe we can achieve more if we all work together. And the first step can be agreeing to a better title.

What do you think?

Regards, Alexander.Hainy 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ffm 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just want to stop in and say hi. I appreciate your efforts over at the AR4 page. Mishlai 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

re:

Hypnosadist, either verify the information, or do not reinsert it. non-English sources are acceptable, but you can't seem to prove that Ibn al-Qayyim has said exactly what is attributed to him, despite my repeated requests. re-inserting it, in spite of knowing that you have not been able to verify it, and in the light of the other OR you have reinstated without justification, amounts to disruption. ITAQALLAH 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

you're the one pressing for its inclusion, so the burden is upon you. in any case, i have already told you that i would be unable to for various reasons. ITAQALLAH 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For restoring true information to the article Islamic military jurisprudence‎. NN 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

Hi, i think the argument for the inclusion of this link is self evident. Muhammad is an exemplar for the islamic faith, his buying, selling and capturing of slaves indicates the complete acceptance of slavery as an act a good muslim can do. What is the Sunnah if it is not the example of Muhammed recorded for all time. Hypnosadist 03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On one level, yes - which is part of the reason i didn't remove it. But as it currently stands, it is too easily read by some as just being a gratuitious jab. Perhaps it can be reworded, replaced or linked better into the article. TO be honest, i can see both sides, and I will watch the discussion play out and maybe my opinion will change. Merbabu 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fence sitter on this one - for now, maybe. I was just trying to get some order put into the 'war'. Merbabu 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha - sitting out can be hard. i've tried. I don't have strong opinions or even much knowledge on the subject But I've got issues with much of DY71's interpretation of WP guidelines. And when i checked some of his online sources, what he was putting in the article were very flexible, often complete distortions and additions to what was being said in the article. I'd had issues with DY71 on another article where his edits were blatantly inappropriate, and on this slavery one there are also blatantly inappropriate ones. To make things difficult though, he's now brought up one that is not so clear. Perhaps you can think of way link/use it better. Merbabu 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

8 March

I guess my issues are still less about the facts but how they are presented. DY71 is an extraordinarily sloppy and POV in his judgements not just here but on other articles (which is how I got to this one). Whereas you come across as at least more impartial and able to see things in context. ie, it's clear he has an agenda (he's said it himself) and it's not so much about wanting to 'censure' rather be very careful about attributing, generalisations as universal cookie-cutter fact (as if Islam is the same everywhere) and interpretting. He's very selective about what and how he uses information. I'd just like to see an article born out of an objective desire to present the facts as they stand (nice or ugly), but this contibutor is clearly motivated by an agenda to pin some blame. --Merbabu 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Women Captives

Hey, Please take a look at this edit and revert if you think right. This anon editor keeps reverting me without giving reasons and I don't want to violate 3RR. NN 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal

Dear HS, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Islam and slavery

Hi Hypnosadist, just a word about some of your posts. It really isn't appropriate to allude to the hypothetical rape of other editors, which some women in particular might find very offensive, and comments like "take the shame" are provocative. It's best to stick to discussing the content rather than the contributors. Cheers, SlimVirgin 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hello, Hypnosadist. As a prominent contributor to Flying Spaghetti Monster, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- MikeURL 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The professional career that you removed from the article was extensively covered by the 9/11 Commission. There is probably no details left uncovered in this. So I wanted to see what you think. ViriiK 11:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I updated the page and what do you think regarding this change? ViriiK 11:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Saber girl08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the complement

Thanks for the complement.

I took a look at the article. There was one aspect of the story that I think was missing from the article. One of the news stories I saw on TV mentioned that Iraq and Iran had a conflict over their maritime boundary. It showed a map of Iraq's version of their territorial waters. Iraq's version of it's territorial water was a narrow twisty triangle.

It would be great if we could find a map that showed the overlapping claims.

Just as the Americans had inserted small teams of special forces, performing reconnaisiance, into Iraq, prior to the invasion, it is believed that they have inserted small clandestine teams into Iran. So, it is not unreasonable for the Iranians to assume a small boat that appeared to be entering their territory, was inserting further recon teams.

The clandestine recon teams in Iraq aimed lasers at targets, so smart bombs could be guided to hit them.

It seems to me that if the Iranians really thought this was an act of war the Marines should be protected by the Geneva Conventions — they were in uniform after all. If the Iranians thought they were spying, the Geneva Conventions would require them to convene "competent tribunals" first. I have heard no indications that they have done so. But these tribunals can be convened very quickly. So they may have already done so. If there competent tribunal concluded they were spying, then they could be stripped of POW status.

There was a case, a few years ago, of a Canadian photo-journalist of Iranian descent. She was arrested after she took some photos of a military prison. She subsequently died in custody, a few days later. There doesn't seem any doubt that her wounds showed she died while being tortured. Like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan, torture is a routine interrorgation tool in Iran. There were serious calls to break off diplomatic relations with Iran over their stone-walling.

It would be good to point to an article about the Iraq-Iran boundary dispute, if we had one.

The 2004 incident concerned the Brits patrolling the river itself, while the recent incidident took place off the mouth of the river.

I'll go look to see if I can find a map of the overlapping territorial claims.

Cheer! -- Geo Swan 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brits in Guantanamo

Hi Hypno. Of course you're right. Although the ex-residents did not just have visas: they were long term residents and, at least in the case of Omar Deghayes, brought up in the UK. Deghayes has a lot of family in Sussex and overwhelming support here, so forgive me for forgetting for a moment that he does not actually have citizenship. Itsmejudith 07:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. There are individual articles on each of the five but it would be really good to bring them together in a summary article. The article on Omar Deghayes is well referenced and reliable material can be found on the website of the Brighton Argus and other newspapers. The Amnesty International site is also a good bet for reliable stuff. Clive Stafford Smith is representing some or all of them and there may be material already in his article or downloadable from reliable web sources if you google his name. I'm going to be really on wikibreak from tomorrow so won't be able to help more for a bit. Thanks very much for this. Itsmejudith 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Al-manar

Hi, I reviewed the article and found that in should be improved. I put my suggestion on the talk page and replaced the GAtag with OnHold tag. I think wikipedians who have worked on Hezbollah article especially User:George.Saliba, User:mceder, User:GHcool, User:Elizmr and me can help you with this article. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, We did our best but this article was failed. You can read our reasons in the talk page of the article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

I noticed you have a Misplaced Pages:Fair use image (Image:EustonManifesto.gif) on your user page. However this is forbidden under policy (fair use images are expliticly not allowed on user pages). Cheers Nil Einne 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems about the time. But it's my understanding it doesn't matter if you're legally allowed to use the image or not. If it's a fair use image, then it's not allowed on user pages as we only allow fair use images when ansolutely necessary (due to our free content goals). You can of course include such images on any other page outside wikipedia assuming they don't have their own rules. You might be interested in this similar case when the person asking similarly appeared to be legally allowed to use the image Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use exemptions#Exemption Request for Image:Chippewa michigan logo.gif. I'm pretty sure your case would receive a similar response but if you believe differently, you're welcome to ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use‎ (as recommended to the other editor) where you'll probably get a better and more knowledgable response. Cheers Nil Einne 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

I've blocked you for a week. Please do not troll.. — Matt Crypto 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly that is not trolling, i've repeatedly asked for sources that meet wp:att, they still continue to insult a faith and claim concensus when it clearly does not exist. Hypnosadist 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And a week is just taking the mick! Hypnosadist 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This admin is involved in a content dispute with me and that clearly violates precedure

I'll be going to dispute resolution at the end of the Block as this is a clear abuse of admin powers to force me off a page to support his views. Hypnosadist 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this block should be aware that A) I have not, at least to my recollection, ever edited the article in question (Flying Spaghetti Monster); and that B) My talk page posts about the article have been pretty much asking people not to post disingenuously about this topic. — Matt Crypto 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As in he routinely acusses me and other editors of being disingenuous in violation of good faith and civilty policies. Hypnosadist 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello! A discussion is going on regarding the reliability of the source . Cheers, --Aminz 02:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Hi, if you are interested in Propaganda, maybe someday you'd also like to look at Tradecraft, or know someone else who would like that? I've always thought it was an awfully weak article, with no proper connections to sub-topics, but I don't really have any expertise to work on it. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about a weak article, in case you might be interested in it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Question About NPOV

Hello - you pointed out something very interesting to me here but it has got me thinking... You wrote this: Example if we have three opinions in an article A, B, C and 50% believe A,30% believe B and 20% believe C then the article should be 50%A, 30%B and 20%C giving the views of all and counter arguements so people can make up their own mind, hope that helps you.

My question is, how can we know that 50% of people believe A? 50% of which people - your local / internet community, The West, The World (I'm assuming it is the latter). But the further you go away from the people you interact with, the less likely it is that you can tell what people believe. So, how can you know how to balance the article?

Another question: on the NPOV (which I now know the N stands for Neutral, and not No!), it says Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. Is that not what I was saying, and therefore different to what you wrote? Please help - I'm confused now! Thanks. Robinson weijman 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning on replying? Robinson weijman 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to press it any further. However, I'm disappointed that you did not reply. Robinson weijman 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Hi - I see you (like me) are interested in the use of IRC - I've had a look over the last couple of days and as far as I can work out the reason that IRC logs are banned is because IRC logs are banned - I cannot find any clear evidence that META prevents it (which was given as a reason why they are unacceptable on en.wikipedia) and indeed, most mentions make it explicit that anything on IRC is nothing to do with wikipedia and therefore it's inappropriate to make policy about it. As for this question of "is it legal" - as far as I can see, all you *might* be doing is breaking the terms of service that go with that channel, which could lead to the service being removed. I might set up a sandbox page off mine (not today I've got a few things on) where I can try and collect all the wikipedia guidelines on the matter together for analysis. --Fredrick day 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

H

I'm going to say the same thing to you as I did to Proabivouac. Drop it. There's nothing else that we can do in this situation. H is not going to feel welcome for quite a while. The trolling by someone in #wikipedia accompanied by the IP's comments were more than enough reason to close the topic.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT HAPPENED IN ANY WAY. The thread got way out of hand.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero tolerance for outing

Just wanted to let you know that I fully support your idea of a zero tolerance policy for outing users. At first, I didn't get why ED wasn't allowed to have an article here, but after reading into it, this is why. We definitely need more teeth in WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks and WP:HARASS to keep this from ever happening again. Blueboy96 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, wikipedians need supporting. 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Oh, and like I mentioned on ANI, I've been assured on IRC that ColScott will never be unblocked. By definition, an indefblocked user is banned when no admin is willing to unblock him--or, by corollary, no admin in his or her right mind will ever unblock him. I believe, and still believe, that anyone who unblocks this guy should be desysopped. Blueboy96 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gossip

Hi Hypnosadist. I know you meant well and I thank you for taking the time to post on my user page. I'm completely aware of the feelings about outing on Misplaced Pages. I contributed in multiple places across namespaces in the recent Charlotteweb fiasco. I'm afraid you're the victim of gossip in this instance. The users who are making a fuss have posted information about themselves to their user pages and article talk pages. The information wasn't just posted. It was linked, laughed about and talked about. I have diffs that completely refute the claims I've outed anybody and I'd appreciate the appropriate channels being used before I am assumed guilty. Thanks again for your concern and good luck with the policy. ॐ Metta Bubble 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. I'm happy to provide evidence to the contrary showing that Metta Bubble made multiple personal attacks against multiple editors by researching their backgrounds, then harassing them with it. --Ronz 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And I for one will be happy to help pull it up and make it stick. FWIW, she acts as if she's under threat of an RfAr. All I'm asking is for her to say she won't do it again.

Hypnosadist, thanks again for your note on Metta's talk page. I wasn't aware of her or anyone else linking to my 18-month-old long deleted user page, laughing about it and talking about it. I would certainly like to see some links to that effect. Anyway - she still doesn't see the difference between deleted personal details somewhere in a corner and posting same on a live page on the world's #10 site. I also note she did not remove it when told this is not a good idea. Next time she will do the same thing to someone else. Please take a look at the AN/I page where Metta continues in her denial. I've asked a question you may want to answer. AvB ÷ talk 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself. ShotInfo was joking about it, not you. I think you should admit you posted your own link and promise yourself not to do it again, and then refrain from involving me in your distortions. ॐ Metta Bubble 03:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Joking about what exactly. The fact that I'clast and others don't have the guts to follow up with their false COI accusations? Yes, I suppose that is a joke and the joke continues over at Barrett-land. For somebody doing a lot of crying about privacy, you don't mind splashing around some lies while doing so. There is a word for this. Shot info 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Hi Hypnosadist -- Metta's post is a non sequitur. It only tells us once again she believes this is OK. She may do this again to me or others (and may have done so in the past) so I'm thinking of creating analysis software to find similar editor behavior (using a local Misplaced Pages mirror, including all older page versions also made available under the GFDL). Questionable behavior can be reported to admins by e-mail. Perhaps you can point me to Misplaced Pages forums where "outing" is being (or has been) discussed? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 10:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARM

You made a good point on this essay's talk page - I've clarified the wording to explain what I meant to say. Walton 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad "apparently" had a child with Maria - only 1 sentence, hence "marriage" not "sexual activities" should be mentioned in intro.

"Muhammad is criticised for apparently having had a child by a slave girl called Maria or Mariyah" - source says "apparent", mostly marriages are mentioned in the article, only "marriages" should be mentioned ~atif - 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Slavery

Hi. I have a question about your placement of Template:Slavery in biographical articles, including John Brown (abolitionist), Frederick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington. It isn't clear to me what criteria are being used when choosing the biographies in which to add this template.

To me, it looks like the template is intended to "tie together" slavery-related articles. Is it also intended to apply to every person who was enslaved (Douglass or Washington) or had an impact on the history of slavery (Brown)? Will the template be added to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the articles of other slave-owners? What about slave-traders, politicians who opposed emancipation, etc. etc.?

I hope you can clarify the purpose of the template and the criteria for its inclusion in biographical articles. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfAR and THF

Per the usual routine, currently the case is in a position to be accepted and should open tomorrow barring further votes of rejection. Just thought you'd like to know. - Penwhale | 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like ArbCom will almost certainly take the case in THF's absence. I share your opinion that this user has been harassed both on- and off-site, and the harassment unfortunately worked. However, I think you should take a back seat when this case is accepted. THF's main issue is on-site harassment; I'm sure he never meant to step on this BADSITES land mine. David Shankbone argues that THF urged the MM.com delinking campaign. I posit that he did no such thing; I never even heard of this BADSITES/SlimVirgin mess before looking over User:Noroton's block, and I doubt THF wanted to be a gambit in that separate war. Due to your controversial role in the delinking edit war, I think you should limit your comments. If you must submit evidence, be immaculately civil even if others are not. However, I think it would be best to leave THF's case entirely to other advocates.

I appreciate your support, but your participation in the ArbCom has the potential to attract personal attacks and more harassment. Cool Hand Luke 22:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A fellow Arbitration Clerk has removed both you and Cyde from the involved parties. I've put out a notice to my fellow clerks to keep only the 2 original parties listed at least at the onset. - Penwhale | 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding

WP:HARASS == + ==As due to my shit connection i cant post on an/i

I am not harassing anyone. Please note that the passage that you, Atren, et. al. are attempting to pass off as indictments on other users, specifically exempts users who have personally revealed their personal details from being protected by WP:HARASS. THF revealed them. It's in the deleted page history, as well as the system logs (which can't be expunged without a developer). We can't turn back the clock.--149.125.202.18 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not going to post on this again to protect THF's privacy the best I can. It is clear which side has won dispite what the policies explicitly say. I'm off to delete all the discussion about this off my talk page. 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this harassment? The comment doesn't even make sense now that you've taken its context out. Stop mutilating other people's comments. --Cyde Weys 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at WP:ANI. Given the lack of consensus that the content you are removing is covered by WP:HARASS, I do not think your edits can be said to be immune from 3RR. Only uncontroversial edits fall outside the scope of the rule. Your revert warring at ANI is proving disruptive - please stop. Discuss wether the link should be removed instead. WjBscribe 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Calling somebody else's post "BS" isn't very civil. I suggest that you wait just a moment before you press the save button during heated debates. I hope this helps. - Jehochman 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also a troubling edit. Please take a break and calm down.--Toffile 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Calm down or take a break from editing. Its obvious you have good intentions but at the moment your causing a lot of disruption for very little benefit. WjBscribe 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm off for a break, while i'm gone for an hour mayby someone should enforce a policy that is deliberatly and repeatedly being broken by the ADMIN Cyde Ways, namely WP:HARASS as dispite many warnings he keeps re-adding harassing material.

This is your final warning

Hypnosadist, several administrators have commented and asked you to stop edit warring. You have continued, across multiple pages, including Cyde's user talk page and WP:AN/I. Your edits are disruptive. Please stop. This is the final warning I give you before I leave a request at the 3RR noticeboard that you be blocked. --Iamunknown 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As i've pointed out on my edit summeries 3rr does not apply when removing vandalism blp or harassment violations. As no-one else is willing to apply policy then i will. Just because cyde is an admin does not mean that rules like WP:HARASS or WP:3rr don't apply to him. You enforce them or i will! Is that clear enough, i notice none of the admins who have complained about my behaviour have complained about Cydes, strange that! 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because perhaps, they're right, and you're wrong in this case? SirFozzie 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't quite think thats it try again after reading WP:HARASS. 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a mistaken interpretation. SirFozzie 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"You have a mistaken interpretation" Not in the slightest, here are the important bits out of WP:HARASS;

1.4 Posting of personal information Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

AND

2 Off-wiki harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking.

and i've highlighted one of the important bits for you to make it easier. 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And I will make it easier for you as well. You continue to violate 3rr and edit war, and you will be blocked to prevent you from continuing to disrupt WP. SirFozzie 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not violating 3rr as your friend told you! PS are you going to enforce policy on CYDE? 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR#Exceptions: "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page and user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore (...) inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere". Assuming the premise that the content restored to Cyde's user space is not in violation of WP:HARASS (which is my stance), his reverts are under that exception. --Iamunknown 03:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He keeps posting links to off-wiki sites with THF's legal name an explicitly named violation of WP:HARASS (see above) or posting it on his own talk page which also violates WP:HARASS to a slightly lesser extent. The policy wording is very clear. If they are not a violation how so? What bits of the policy support your point of view, as i have yet to see any from Cyde's camp at all. 03:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the bit of the policy I've underlined above. The policy is intended to protect people from suffering harm off-wiki due to their activities here. THF is not complaining of that - he is already (he claims) suffering harassment that has nothing to do with the fact he edits Misplaced Pages. What he wants to prevent is discussion of the appropriateness of him editing Misplaced Pages due to his off-wiki identity. The policy was not designed to have that result, and so I do not think you can claim an "explicitly named violation". This is a novel scenario that the policy did not contemplate- which is why discussion is needed. WjBscribe 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media" The important word is RISK not fear or worry of harm by the editor. None of that is made mention of in the policy just reason for doing this is the risk this places THF in.

"This is a novel scenario that the policy did not contemplate- which is why discussion is needed." Yes discussion is needed and its taken about ten hours to get someone to discuss actual policy. But at the moment ArbCom needs to be respected and its current policy view Enforced. Once policy has been edited then we can act according to that new policy. I have edited in good faith and totally in line with current policy and don't expect (well i do but that beside the point) to be gang tackeled by admins backing there mate up. 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're starting to see the weakness in your argument here. THF is not put at any greater risk of harm by his name being linked to this Misplaced Pages account - moving this away from what the policy is designed to deal with. And no one is "backing up their mate" - no one who has suggested you calm down has much contact with Cyde. Several admins have however noticed that you're the one causing disruption (however well intentioned you may be). WjBscribe 04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"I think you're starting to see the weakness in your argument here. THF is not put at any greater risk of harm by his name being linked to this Misplaced Pages account" 1)Yes it is, hes already had lots of insulting and threatning emails because of the MM.com post and Cyde is trying to keep up the pressure. 2)It does not matter if you think he is at greater risk the policy does and proscribes action to prevent it. That is removing the privacy violations. End of! 04:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Several admins have however noticed that you're the one causing disruption" The admins should have read policy and followed it then so i don't have to do it. 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"What he wants to prevent is discussion of the appropriateness of him editing Misplaced Pages due to his off-wiki identity" WTF? I'm posting this comment to THF you got any proof of that? 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC) PS and given he put himself up for a CoI on sicko i don't see youv'e got a leg to stand on. 04:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its an observation. Do with it what you will. This whole objection to his name being used grew out of discussions about what articles he had a COI. The postings of his name he has objected to have also been raising this issue. Its hard for someone to explain why they think THF editing article X is a problem without revealing who THF is. WjBscribe 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Its hard for someone to explain why they think THF editing article X is a problem without revealing who THF is" But that is not what is happening, and even if it was there are ways around it ie THF is a lawyer who has worked for Big Pharma does not violate WP:Harass posting his real name on many pages does. 04:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it really, really doesn't, and your repetition of that misunderstanding doesn't make it any more accurate. KillerChihuahua 11:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

- ::::What? An admin is calling him by his last name in comments, "Mr." as if he works under the New York Times styleguide—for no reason at all. None. Just to annoy him. Even if you don't think HARASS covers this, CIVIL certainly does. I don't endorse this user's edit wars (and user should stop), but Cyde's behavior is unacceptable. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Cool Hand Luke. Let's take Mindspillage as an example. Everyone knows her name is Kat Walsh, but she's fine with that. In fact, she signs as Kat Walsh on talk pages. But suppose she first registered with her real name, and then regretted it because of people sending her threatening messages, and some website publishing her name and photo. So, she requests a name change to Mindspillage, removes personal information about herself from her user page, and (pretend she's not an admin) asks an admin to remove the page history. Now, if every time she requested that people not refer to her by her real name, someone deliberately, unnecessarily, and provokingly linked to the user rename log in the reply (as Cyde was doing), or posted that it was impossible to have real privacy once the information is in the history, and deliberately, unnecessarily, and provokingly slipped her real name into the post: "Ms Walsh is out of luck" (as DragonflySixtyseven did), it would be incredibly rude and disrespectful.

That said, I have to agree that you're not helping matters, Hypnosadist. Some months ago, harassment victims lost a lot of the support that they had previously enjoyed, because a sockpuppet/troll registered an account, began to work on aggressively removing links to sites that engage in speculation on editors' identities, including some that had lain undisturbed in archives, wrote a proposed policy page that was far too strict (failing to differentiate between egregious privacy violations and ordinary criticism), put up the appearance of really, really, really aggressively pushing his proposed policy, and then disappeared, leaving behind a situation where ArbCom members were no longer supportive of victims, because they saw that the support that they had previously argued for could be "misused", and a situation where trolls and stalkers as well as insensitive and inconsiderate users in good standing could happily reinsert links to sites that put people in danger of real life stalking, just by pointing out that the proposed policy had been rejected.

I don't know your history, and haven't time to look at it. I'll assume that you care about THF's privacy and want to protect him. But the experience with the last troll leads me to at least consider the possibility that you're a troll trying to make those who support harassment victims even more unpopular, and to further weaken their position. I'm not suggesting it's true. But the effect is likely to be the same. Also, removing someone's name without replacing it with either "he" or "" just leaves incomplete and incomprehensible sentences. Please stop. ElinorD (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the people who keep posting here do something about Cyde because you admit hes in the wrong. Elinor don't waste your time looking at my history, try looking at CYDE and David shankbones history of 3rr, harass and civility violations. Then do something about it. 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please drop it.

See WP:VPP#THF. THF 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Second that

I agree, the issue is closed. Please let it go. ATren 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you to AN/I. Please, chill. Go see a film like Jimbo said. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification...

I agree with just about every complaint you have - that other editors acted inappropriately, that it was uncivil, and that it should have been dealt with more forcefully. But I also feel very strongly now that you are making it worse by pursuing it. It's over. THF has reconsidered his request, and he's requested that you drop the issue now. If you don't respect his wishes on this, how are you any different than those who didn't respect his repeated requests for anonymity on AN/I? This is THF's decision, and he's made a decision to drop it, so please let it go. ATren 21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's avoid being POINTY, OK?

Well, either the bishop is purportedly notable per your story, or not per your claim he's irrelevant. As a scientist myself, I draw conclusions based on evidence, and this contradiction, as well as your several other examples there of naive/uninformed (at best) polemics are quite clear evidence that you are disrupting WP to make a point. Please refrain per that guideline and let's get back to writing a good encyclopedia. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Galloway. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

False claim of "minor edit"

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to George Galloway, as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Misplaced Pages:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Adding an attack on a third party is NOT a minor edit RolandR 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Only warning

Please do not revert courtesy blankings on arbitration pages without committee permission, and please do not make inflammatory and incivil comments like this. You might be interested to know it was Frank, not Shankbone, who requested the blanking. I suggest you apologize to Brad immediately. Picaroon (t) 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad was not Frank's persecutor. I can't imagine where you got that idea. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Having seen your comment on Picaroon's talk, as a point of information, I had nothing at all to do with filing the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slavery and Nav Box

It isn't part of the series: Template talk:Christianity. It should have the portal link. -- SECisek (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

• Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jewish slave trade

I'd like a retraction, please, for a personal attack

In http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Waterboarding#Shibumi2_second_attempt_at_new_article_lead you (or someone using your account) said:

No its about you and your mates running blocking coverage for the CIA. (Hypnosadist) 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You won't be able to prove that I'm doing that, because I'm not. htom (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) --- Prove what?

If you mean youre doing what the CIA would want ie trying to cast doubt on if waterboarding is torture then it is demostrable by your actions. (Hypnosadist) 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ---

I doubt that you can prove that, either. htom (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

== Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

==

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)