Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 9 August 2009

Archive1

"Hey, does User:BrandonYusufToropov reserve the right to delete, without explanation, material on his talk page that he, in his sole, exclusive, and perhaps even arbitrary judgment determines to be disrespectful or inappropriate?"

Your book

Re your inquiry, I'd be happy to share my personal perspectives on the subjects you've written about, but prefer to do so by e-mail. Not that I have anything particularly controversial to say, but as I prefer that others keep their views separate from their editing, I feel obliged to do so myself.Proabivouac 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro -- yes, that would be fine. Eager to hear what you have to say. Yusuf.Toropov@gmail.com. Peace, BYT 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust article

You appear to have weighed in on issues with The Holocaust's article before, can you weigh in on the use of the word 'slaughter,' as seen here? —Parhamr 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

I see you have listed this for FAC twice. I would like to get this to FA too. I am putting all the refs in proper format now, removing dead links and mark them as citation needed. Then I'll find any needed refs that I can. Then I plan to rework the article, including getting most if not all refs out of the lead. A good lead needs few if any refs. Then I'll do final FAC checks. I've gotten nine articles to FA status. Let me know if you'd like to help. Respond here please, I have a watch on your page now.Rlevse 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rlevse -- and for all the good work on the article. The article is an important one. If I recall correctly, people did want the refs out of the lead ... let me know what I can do to help. BYT

Let me finish with the ref cleanup. Right now, could you find valid citations for all the "Citation needed" tags and work on that one item on the "Todo" list on the talk page? Thanks for helping.Rlevse 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. BYT 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed or deleted all "Citation needed" tags. Steel showdown with Supreme Court is next on my list. Thanks again for the help. BYT 10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we'll just keep plugging away until it's ready for FA.Rlevse 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HST status

Okay, here's where we are at and the next steps, basically, the article is too long: 1) the lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article, it needs trimmed and made a summary 2) the TOC is long, see if it can be shortened 3) copyedit, avoid all those parens, make prose smoother 4) wikilink full dates, like August 04, 2007 5) every section and all but the smallest paragraphs need refs. Best to use the ones we already have if they apply

We need to cut about 10-15k out of it, if we have to we can make subarticles, but see what you can do on the above steps first. Use Gerald R. Ford as a guide, it's an FA.

Also, look at the first two FAC failures and see if anything still applies. Did you notice I objected on the first two runs-;) Rlevse 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC?Rlevse 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the note suggesting the race relations and KKK material is out of place? BYT 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great, and I think it's ready for nom. Thanks for all your hard work. BYT 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a few more people to look it over. Hoary would like a bit more time. I'm currently planning to nom it on Sat, 11 Aug. Rlevse 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoary wants more time. I think we should wait now until he thinks it's ready.Rlevse 10:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Valid references"

If you don't think this is a partisan religious source, then you're terribly mistaken. Arrow740 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

This is an unfortunate edit summary. In general it works better to just describe your edit, and use the talk page for dialog. And even at that, it's just an editing disagreement, not a conspiracy against you. It's also odd to complain of being reverted while yourself reverting over unrelated edits that only corrected mistakes in the interwiki linking. Tom Harrison 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Tom. My apologies. BYT 14:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's a difficult area to work in. Thanks, Tom Harrison 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Duping this exhange with Proabivouac and Arrow for my own archives

Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad (From BYT to User:Proabivouac:)

I really had expected more of you.

The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.

Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.

On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, thank you for your message. Of course I understand what the mediation would be generally about; to pretend otherwise would indeed be disingenuous. That does not, however, answer what is disputed. Specifically, what will (or won't) be disputed after the regular process of talk page discussion has taken its course. You say there has been a dispute involving me since July 20. Whatever it is, it hasn't involved you since July 25, when you quit the talk page. I've attempted to discuss your last edit, and you didn't respond. Other people are discussing things there that hadn't even been brought up last week. What do you think about them? We don't know. What input could you have offered during this time? We don't know. As for what version of the passage I'd support, that, too has changed, not due to inconsistency of principle, but because new materials have been added to the mix of proposed inclusions, new arguments have been offered, etc. I don't see that we're at a point where we can say we've hit the proverbial brick wall. If and when we have - and presumably at that time, what is disputed will be much clearer - then naturally I'd agree to mediation. But at this moment, there is an active discussion on talk and I see no reason to abandon it, or to conduct our conversation in two places. If there is a broad consensus to move the talk page discussions to the mediation page, then naturally I'll follow, for the same reason (i.e. if you can bring everyone else on board, you can count me among them.) I hope that I've addressed your concerns.Proabivouac 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. Will you be saying, one way or the other, whether you will take actually part in the mediation I've requested? (Aminz has agreed to do so.) Or will you be, as it were, waiting for the clock to expire? These are fair (and concise) questions that deserve, I think, responses that are equally direct. BYT 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it strikes me as premature, because there is still an active and non-redundant discussion underway on talk. If there is consensus among the talk page participants to move this discussion to the mediation page, then, naturally, I'll follow.

Now for another direct question: why won't you participate on the regular talk page?Proabivouac 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like playing out the clock to me. (That's just a personal observation, mind you.)

I am not participating on the talk page just now because I believe there is an organized, obstructionist effort from someone (I do not know who) that has as its aim the prevention of actual, collaborative editing on this paragraph.

I was so hoping to work with you in a cooperative way, Pro. If you ever decide you're up for it, try actually placing a draft of something on my talk page. That wouldn't break any principles of yours, would it? BYT 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This content dispute has become quite dramatic. Arrow740 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:RFM Muhammad

Hi BYT,

I hope you are fine and everything is going well with you. Thanks for helping with the dispute on Muhammad article. There are some undiscussed fundamental questions regarding the presentation of the story (e.g. How significant is the whole story in Muhammad's life, and how much space should be dedicated to it? A sentence? A line? A paragraph?).

Regardless of the story, Sura Al-Najm is a nice one. I read the commentary of this Sura from Tafsir al-Mizan(this is the one I like, but there are many other good ones as well). First thing I noticed was that the Arabic words sometimes can not be accurately translated into one English word (but rather should be translated into a phrase) and thus the available English translations do not faithfully present that. Verses 7-17 are interesting! It is an interesting exercise to figure out which pronoun refers to which person. For me, it was like those story books in which nothing becomes clear until the last point and the person you guess should be guilty turns out to be innocent :) Anyways, the context of these verses and the following ones(all having the same rythm) are not in anyway becoming close to a "satanic verses" theme; the text aims conveying information on a different issue.

Cheers, --Aminz 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is inappropriate, Aminz. Please send him an e-mail instead next time. Welch writes that this surah has been revised and contains later interpolations (Hawting, page 54). Arrow740 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can not see this comment of mine has anything to do with you Arrow nor do I remember I've invited you to comment here Arrow. --Aminz 07:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't remember it because you didn't have to invite me, this is a public space meant for aiding collaborative work on this encyclopedia, which your post does not do. If you want your thoughts to remain private, send an e-mail next time. Arrow740 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, considering responses like this, i'm starting to feel that future productive talk page discussion on this issue won't be likely. i'd like to participate in mediation, if i am welcome. ITAQALLAH 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the satanic verses issue was resolved, as you recently reverted to one of my compromise attempts. Arrow740 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

there are problems with the version i reverted to, i just disliked the previous version more. ITAQALLAH 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with it. I guess this is a sign that it is a compromise. Arrow740 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Muhammad. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your question re Islamofascism

I really don't know. Though I am irked by the double standards at work here – Islamofascism, New antisemitism, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and so on – I am inclined to let them be for now. I don't like scare quotes and weaselly disclaimers in titles. But I guess it's a matter of choosing your battles, and I am more concerned about the subtle ways in which POV is pushed into content (Sabra and Shatila massacre is a particularly appalling example) than about the relatively obvious ways it betrays itself in article titles.

If you're asking me whether Islamofascism should exist in the first place, my answer is yes. My only criteria in this respect is service to the reader. If it's something you hear about, you should be able to find out more about it on Misplaced Pages.--G-Dett 15:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi BYT, I originally wrote the following on the Israeli apartheid talk page, then decided to move it here:

"Islamofascism" is similar in some respects in that it's a lightening-rod word for a lot of people, but it's very different because most who use it don't pursue an extended comparison between Islamism and Italian fascism (the original fascism). It may simply be that "fascism," like "ethnic cleansing," has come further along in becoming a generic political term than "apartheid," or it may be that those who speak of "Israeli apartheid" see more of a point-by-point similarity than those who speak of "Islamofascism," but figuring out which it is really beside the point. What matters is that secondary sources don't really talk about "the Islamofascism analogy." Or do they? If they do, then there's a case for treating it as such. But anyway we're talking about this article here. I thought we agreed there shouldn't be linkage lest we join those who have violated WP:POINT in pursuit of "system-wide NPOV."

I decided that given the heightened tensions on that page, it might make more sense to discuss this separately between you and me. I respect your position on "Islamofascism," in fact if I understand it right I agree with it. It may in fact be that it's "Israeli apartheid" where you and I part ways...At any rate, all the best,--G-Dett 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I do not believe that articles about political epithets are in most cases encyclopedic. Fascism and Apartheid are the names the practitioners themselves gave to their systems, while the first one is very conventional used to describe similar systems of the 20th century. I don't believe anyone would describe their own system as "Islamofascism," or that the analogy is the conventional term for political Islamism of any variety. At least, they are POV forks of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamism with more prejudicial titles.Proabivouac 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re; "I do not believe that articles about political epithets are in most cases encyclopedic." A direct question: Would you join me in a motion to delete Islamofascism on these grounds? BYT 10:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

<chirping of crickets follows for an extended period> BYT 10:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with you that write things like that? Of course I would. Nominate it and forward me the link. All these "term" articles must go; not as POV, but as cruft.

You make these assumptions about me which are completely unfounded, and I wish you would stop. Just because I don't agree with you about the Satanic Verses doesn't make me (or anyone else) some parody of a hypocritical POV warrior you've created in your mind. Editors who project this onto others often do so because that's the way they view things themselves, thus assume that others view it the same way, but don't admit it. When I say something isn't encyclopedic, I mean it. You don't see me hanging around this kind of article for a good reason. I stick with real things in history, not "terms," "allegations" or even "criticism." Islamofascism, Islamophobia, Flying while Muslim, Religion of Peace, All this is, in my view, an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and a total waste of time.Proabivouac 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: Some people can't take a joke. Anyway: This is my point, Pro. Every time I suggest something you and I could actually work on together, there's either silence or a response like the one above. So presumably we've now found some common ground. Could I ask you to make an investment in this relationship by taking action?

I've reached out to you several times to build up some kind of trust and a working relationship here. I asked if you would work with me on creating a draft of the disputed "Story of the Cranes" material -- you ignored that and went back to the revert button, which, I note for the record, you are using again this very morning. I asked you to work with me on crafting the mediation language for that passage: nothing happened. I posed the question above; you ignored it (until I cracked that 'crickets' joke) and went back to focusing on what you didn't like about my work on Muhammad.

This is my fundamental misgiving about you. If you refuse to collaborate with an editor, under any circumstances, it seems fair to assume there are larger biases in place.

Somewere between crickets chirping and you lecturing me there is, I think, a working relationship here. Are you actually, truly willing to work with me to find it? I hope so. It would be a gesture of good faith if you were to nominate Islamofascism for deletion. If you feel you can't do that, could you please leave a message here explaining why? BYT 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave up on nominating things like this for deletion long ago, for the very same reasons that they were all kept in previous deletion discussions: cruft has a constituency, and criteria for article deletion is a lot tougher - in most cases, a superconsensus - than it is to eliminate silliness from mainspace. Too many editors !vote based on POV, and not enough editors understand or are committed to encyclopedic criteria to overcome that. The usual outcome is somewhere 50-50 to 60-40, which is not enough to delete. That's why it accumulates. That doesn't mean I won't pop up and lodge my opinion if someone nominates them. Perhaps sentiment will have changed.Proabivouac 19:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. BYT 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a horrible problem which goes far beyond Islam-related articles. There's an arbitration case involving "allegations" articles right now: no one could delete the absurd Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, so they created a bunch of even more absurd articles alleging "Apartheid" in other nations to ease the sting, complete with a template to navigate between them. Those, too, proved difficult to delete. One of them was deleted, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid but only because the closing admin blew off the vote (count them, that would usually mean "no consensus to delete") and did it anyway. Of course, that's what should have been done with AIA to begin with, but you know, people aren't always here to write a neutral scholarly encyclopedia: to many, that Israeli policies are wrong and must be condemned is more important than any WP principle one could quote them, to others, preventing Israel from being unfairly singled out is likewise more important. The general problem is POV pushing; the mechanism being exploited is the extreme weakness of deletion procedures relative to our other quality control mechanisms (which are already pretty weak,) allowing us various excuses for what is really POV forking. Articles about terms are inherently suspect, such as the four I mentioned above. Is there really any chance that any of those were not created to make some kind of political point? In theory, this kind of engagement is prohibited. In practice, compliance is 99% voluntary, and as such, people ignore it.

As for the crickets, though your page is on my watchlist, I don't always notice the changes, and I'm often caught up in other things. It's not me deliberately ignoring you.Proabivouac 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Parens

Please stop putting parens in articles. My ol college English prof said if it's important enough to mention, don't minimalized it with parens. Tks.Rlevse 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(Roger, Houston.) :) BYT 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tks-;) Rlevse 14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Reguarding your recent comment, it may be better if you post on the talk page from now on, instead of on the main page. That is where most people made their statements.--Sefringle 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this for my records

Say…

Say, Bless sins, three people have nominated me for adminship. Supposing I accepted one of these days, would you trust me with the tools? Are there concerns you would have which I could address? Because we've disagreed a lot, you seem like a better person to ask than someone with whom I've never been in editorial conflict.Proabivouac 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Pro: By that logic, you should also be asking me.
• But that might mean addressing directly questions about why you a) tampered with my userpage without first posting a note on my talk page about the changes you wanted to make, why you b) violated WP:3RR and then talked your way out of being blocked for it on Kaaba, where you were fixated on inserting an image of the Prophet, and why you c) refused to work with me to generate a consensus draft at Muhammad on disputed text, ducked questions there, and refused, via the silent treatment, mediation on the resulting logjam.
• If you (or your buddies Matt57 or Arrow740) ever do want to talk about any of these things (as in, you know, maintain a continuous dialogue) why not drop me a line? BYT 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't ask you because, in my experience, you are perpetually nurturing grievances and looking for various ways to leverage most any conversation back to your talking points. a) Telling other users they'll burn in Hell is deeply uncivil - even if you feel you're doing them a favor by warning them - and uses Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. b) I hardly had to "talk my way" out of anything - the IP had been blocked for vandalism. c) I'm always open to mediation where we know what is to be mediated, and where it seems productive. We've discussed all of this before, and the answers haven't changed. As for e-mail, I'd wanted to talk about your book, definitely not depictions of Muhammad or how disappointing it was to you that I wasn't brought to wikijustice for restoring them.Proabivouac 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Back to square one, then, and the test here would be whether or not you actually answer this question, as opposed to vanishing again into the troposphere.
• If I were to see something I didn't like on someone's userpage, I wouldn't change it unilaterally, but rather leave a note on the talk page so as to initiate a discussion about it.
• Looking back on what happened, Pro, do you think perhaps you and I might have gotten off to a better start if you'd followed that approach? BYT 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we would have. In an ideal wikiworld, it shouldn't have been necessary - removing inflammatory userspace material helps everyone, especially their posters - but I've come to accept that significant portions of the community expect this point of wikietiquette to be followed, and that you'll get pushback if you don't make the attempt. I'd now guess that you'd have taken it down eventually if asked, so that would have been the better approach.

I'll invite you to recall that this was part of a broader conversation about the general atmosphere around these parts. There was a time when many userpages challenged, ridiculed or insulted the Islamic religion. That time has passed, largely because of the efforts of FayssalF, which I'm happy to have supported - although you're certainly welcome to blame it all on me.Proabivouac 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you've "come to expect" about points of wikietiquette does not relieve you of the responsibility of actually observing it while interacting with users whose views on the proper usage of religious scripture might differ from yours.

• If you'd asked, you'd have found me quite amenable to changing it. Next time, don't steamroller me, please.

• Perhaps at some point you'll see fit to actually apologize for tampering with my userpage, an action that was unjustified.

• So, by the way, were these four reverts of yours at Kaaba:

• 1st revert: 07:18, 10 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:27, 10 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:44, 10 July 2007
• 4th revert: 10:34, 10 July 2007

• ... which reverts addressed, not vandalism, as you claim, but the deletion of specific content (namely, a disputed image) in accordance with a discussion that was taking place on the Talk page at the time. Yes, the (new) user was in violation of 3RR, too. Yes, you had hundreds more edits of experience than he did, and yes, you should have known better. Perhaps at some point you'll see fit to accept some accountability here, as well.
• Given your demonstrated record of acrimony and intolerance on topics of interest to Muslim editors, and of ignoring people who disagree with you, I shouldn't be at all surprised if you chose instead to glide gently into the troposphere once again. BYT 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you want from me at this point.Proabivouac 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology for tampering with my userpage without discussion beforehand, and an acknowledgment that you unwittingly violated WP:3RR at Kaaba. Then let's move on and (who knows) maybe get some good work done together. BYT 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, you're asking the wrong person: it was Karl Meier who removed it.21:14, 20 April 2007 I am the one who left a message on your talk page.07:19, 21 April 2007Proabivouac 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I stand corrected. And my second point?BYT 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No trouble. Generally, it's probably not to mull over old grievances anyhow, but for Karl Meier's actions, you may want to see Misplaced Pages:User page#Inappropriate content. People disagree about what is offensive, extremely offensive, etc. (and the precise wording of this policy varies over time,) some people find claims about being a "sockpuppet of Allah" (per now-banned DavidYork71, which I removed) extremely offensive, others not so offensive. It doesn't matter, really; the point is that the material does nothing to improve the project, so any downsides are unmitigated losses. I understand why you feel he'd committed a breach of etiquette, but arguing about it is sort of a waste of time IMO.

On Kaaba, I'd reported the anon at WP:AIV,, which should at least show you that I considered that I was reverting vandalism (as shown in my edit summaries.) The responding administrator agreed. WP:3RR isn't supposed to be WP:AN/GOTCHA!, as I've said on numerous occasions - for example, when (unsuccesfully) defending Itaqallah against a vexatious report and unjust block. Even so, I'd self-reverted.11:10, 10 July 2007 - as in Itaqallah's case, you never know how those reports will turn out; some are mishandled. I find the glee with which some treat their wikiopponents' blocks depressing. Some are well-earned and necessary, obviously, but the point of the noticeboard is to maintain order by encouraging discussion and curbing edit-warring. Encouraging anons to blank ad infinitum (including blanking the entire page ) or opportunistically punishing established editors for rolling it back doesn't serve that purpose, but undermines it. If editors are proceding in a lawful manner and engaging in meaningful discussion, there's generally no reason to block them.Proabivouac 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Proceeding in a lawful manner, by my lights, doesn't include reverting four times within 24 hours. You acknowledged as much when you self-reverted. I'm not entirely certain why you're continuing to tiptoe around the question here.
• It seems to me it's possible you were simply eager to get that image back in, and that you disagreed with the tactics of the editor who was trying to take it out. I don't blame, you, by the way. I disagreed with those tactics, too, but in the case of your fourth revert, you claimed vandalism, and that's simply not appropriate on content disputes where a discussion is in process.
• My question is a direct one. Should you have made the fourth revert, or shouldn't you? BYT 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have made the fourth revert, because that provided a pretext for ALM to file a vexatious report (the second time he'd done so: the first one was remarkably similar to the one which got Itaqallah popped.) Accordingly, I'd self-reverted to avoid any problems; it's not an acknowledgment of wikiguilt, just a recognition that the noticeboard doesn't always produce the expected results. It depends on who is responding.Proabivouac 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the dialogue on this. We have different perceptions of events, but I suppose we should get used to that. BYT 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

References

The Scouting project keeps a handy list of cites ready to copy and paste at WP:S-CIT. Have a great day! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will use these, Godwilling. BYT 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I use this several times a day, and sharing is good. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

The initial RfM was on whether or not to say the event happened. You stopped trying to compromise or even edit the article, preferring to post negative statements about me at the mediation page as your explanation of why I, the most active person in the conversation and the one with the most sources at his disposal, should not be included. While you were busy with that, we compromised and no longer stated it was historical. You continued to insist on "mediation," though you had not noticed this. Then itaqallah (a sometimes quite reasonable editor who shares your POV on many issues) agreed to a compromise version I had written, instating it himself. Even Aminz let it go from that point on. Now you say that in order to edit, I have to agree to mediation, when I have been actively brokering compromises and explaining my reasoning with multiple scholarly sources since the beginning? All you have done is editorialize on that article. I have not inserted my own POV at all, which I could easily do as Rodinson expresses it. What forbearance have you shown? You called the verses "enigmatic" and included a post-900 Islamic argument against historicity, when there are multiple stronger arguments for historicity that I have not included. Who is inserting his POV? You are. Arrow740 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

see "a sometimes quite reasonable editor... even"--Aminz 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's reaching for it, Aminz.Proabivouac 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow -- are you willing to go into mediation over what this paragraph should look like, or not? BYT 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, the first step remains to discuss things on talk. Really, it's not just me; these are the rules: WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved You've introduced material we've never seen before, and your only comment was to tell Arrow740 he had no business editing the page, because he didn't agree to meditation.Proabivouac 10:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, you lose a lot of credibility when you continue to attribute positions to people which aren't true. i didn't "agree" to the "compromise version" you had written, i made that quite clear (on this very page, no less, as well as the article talk page). ITAQALLAH 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i also do not see why the basis for mediation is being questioned. we had masses of discussion (sometimes circular), a RfC, and yet more discussion - all centering around how we should go about expressing this incident. there was no resolution to that- disingenuous claims of acceptance aside- and the failed mediation request stated that explicitly. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By instituting my compromise yourself in place of another, later attempt, you showed that you can live with it. That's the whole point of a compromise. The current version is short and to the point, while not asserting that the event happened and including a view of the matter discounted by reliable secondary sources. It seems like it should be acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. Arrow740 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss BYT's recent edits on the section he titled Talk:Muhammad#User:Arrow740, you are now reinserting your POV to a disputed passage you have refused to enter mediation on. It's the first I've seen of this particular text, to which I strongly object, as it strays from encyclopedic and neutral tone, with the effect of baffling readers rather than informing them: "It is said that according to this alleged story, some believe the so-called "Satanic verses" can be argued to have made vague and unclear references to mysterious cranes which some consider may or may not have represented Meccan goddesses." (A parody, yes, and my fault for that.)Proabivouac 21:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, I've left commentary on your last version on Talk:Muhammad. Perhaps there is some way to address your concerns without resorting to this brand of writing.Proabivouac 02:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. We did talk. We did RFC. It's clear where this is going. Just a straight answer: Are people going to engage in mediation or not? BYT 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, your only comment to the talk page for many weeks has been to falsely tell Arrow740 that he has no business editing the article. Per WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved, I'm trying to talk to you on Talk:Muhammad. Is the issue to be mediated the presence or absence of sneeringly skeptical unencyclopedic spin? Here I am fairly confident that Aminz and Itaqallah as well as Arrow740 will agree with me, as will most any mediator or arbitrator. That's why it's so important to outline what's to be mediated: a mediation on this particular question is a foregone conclusion and a waste of time. I understand that you don't believe the incident occurred, and that you don't want the article to give the impression that it might have occurred, but we just don't write like this in mainspace. It's expressly prohibited by WP:WTA and WP:NPOV.Proabivouac 10:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page shows this has been under discussion since July 26. (I'm in there too, plenty -- go check -- and although I'm duly flattered, I'm not sure why you think the discussion doesn't exist when I'm not actually posting on the talk page.)

Anyway, about the whole "how on earth do we know what's in dispute" thing. I've got an idea. You frame an initial draft of the mediation sentence as you'd like it to appear right here on this page, I'll offer my comments, and that way we'll work together on it, and we'll eventually both be clear on it. Then we can present it to others and see what they think. Are you up for building sandcastles, or just stomping on them?

By the way (and for the record) this is where it always lands, Pro. I ask you directly for help in coming up with a compromise draft of something that you and I can both stand behind, and you levitate up to the troposphere again, to confer with who knows what otherworldly forces. BYT 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an RfM. Use the talk page or stop wasting our time. Your inference that Pro is being advised by demons makes it all worth it, though. Arrow740 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock

BYT, who are you saying is a sock, User:Dean Wormer?Proabivouac 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're being just a little paranoid, Pro. I didn't say anyone was a sock. BYT 10:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a few obvious socks which have jumped in lately (not necessarily DW)…I just didn't notice any of them touching the verses. To which "brand new editor" did you refer?Proabivouac 10:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant "new to this argument." Just check the history. BYT 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Cyrusc 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your patience

at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid is commendable. I also empathize with the concerns you raise about my idea of documenting our argumentation. (e.g., concern w/splitting conversation, need to be inclusive and not let people feel cut out) If we do document the pro/con views, and sharing your weariness over long summaries, I agree that we should edit it to be concise (or link to longer explanations already hashed out in Talk). But given the complexity of the arguments, and the difficulty of finding a process to revolve this dispute, I think it's worth a try. IOW, it will tax more of your patience, but hopefully be more efficient in the end. Take care. HG | Talk 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) PS forgot to mention that when you said "Agree strongly. BYT 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)" it wasn't clear from the formatting what (who?) you were agreeing with. HG | Talk 10:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I clarified my comment there, thanks for the heads up.

BYT, hi again. I empathize with your latest on Talk:AoIA. I'm assuming this "I am inclined to push back a little bit on 6Sj7's suggestion above" = means you'd like to move faster, as you say afterwards. Plus, you've contributed alot and deserve to be able to move ahead. I feel this way, too, but people aren't commenting alot either here or on the restructuring page. So, rather than have things slap us back in the face, let's take it slow. Yes, infuriatingly slow. Meanwhile, we can try to write intro sentences for the subsections, condense quote farm sections into encyclopedic sentences, etc. Ok? Take care, BYT. HG | Talk 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BYT, hi, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to ask you about a recent edit to AoIA. Would you mind restoring the word 'Policy' in the Part A. heading? Also, I assume you don't mind my writing to your user page. Didn't seem worth raising it on the article Talk. Take care, HG | Talk 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Harry S. Truman

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions to article quality on Misplaced Pages, especially on getting Harry S. Truman to Misplaced Pages:Featured Article status. Rlevse 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Burnham edits

Nice edits to the Burnham article. We are hoping it passes the GA process. Thanks for your help. -- Ctatkinson 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Thanks Brandon :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pale Fire

Hi, I'm glad you're working on Pale Fire.

I changed one of your sentences, and you more or less reverted it. This is the present version:

'What the note to line 894 does feature, however, is an episode involving, among other people, a nosy academic who asks Kinbote/Charles/Botkin/Botkine unwelcome questions about his past, and then theorizes that Kinbote's name is a playful reassembly of the letters in "Botkin" or "Botkine."'

Here are the reasons for my changes. For one thing, I don't think "feature" is the right word. It's defined as "To have or include as a prominent part or characteristic" (American Heritage Dictionary). I don't think there's anything prominent about the Botkin(e) bit.

Also, Prof. Pardon doesn't ask Kinbote questions about his past before bringing up "Botkin"—nobody does. And we don't know whether he's being nosy or not. The story we're discussing is that our narrator was a Russian refugee, Botkin, and then changed his name. We don't know who he told that he's Zemblan or how he justified the name change—he might have said himself that it was an anagram. So Pardon may be saying things he thought were incontrovertible public knowledge, only to find that Kinbote is now delusional on the subject.

Likewise we don't know that he "theorizes" that "Kinbote" is an anagram. He says he "was under the impression", which could mean that he had theorized it himself, but more suggests that someone had told him that (maybe even Kinbote himself, as I said). He also says nothing about it being playful, as you called it.

Finally, I don't think the narrator's name is the place to stress the confusion over his real identity. it's fine to just call him Kinbote. If we do want to make this point, I think we should do it only once, not again in the next paragraph. And we can leave out Botkine, which is just the French-style romanization of the same name.

What do you think? —JerryFriedman 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All very good edits. Great course-correcton. Thanks! BYT 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you must

Read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration and put your oar in there. Tom Harrison 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Message for Proabivouac

I think part of the problem is that some of the people you believe to be harrassing you have been lectured by you in the past about minute points of Wiki-etiquette and warned repeatedly by you about various possible policy violations.

They are (I am) not harassing you so much as trying to pick up the relationship as members of the reality-based community ... to establish whether you intend to continue both violating rules (like probation) and advocating sternly, at precisely the same time, for the importance of other people following them.

Perhaps you could comment on this. Since you mention so prominently the importance of apologies above, I wonder about the degree to which you feel one might be appropriate in your own situation, and to people with whom you have disagreed in the past.

It sounds like you plan to stick around, and if that's the case, I think there's a good chance that could be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. For my part, I am certainly sorry about problems I may have brought to this editing relationship, and hope we can begin, as it were, with a clean slate. At the same time, I think I would like to hear directly from you about the issues I've raised here. BYT 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I left the message on Proabivouac's talk in complete good faith, simply asking an explanation from a user who wishes to become an administrator. If Proabivouac considers this as "harrasment", then that is fine. We should leave him/her alone, as he has requested.Bless sins 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page fallout

Sometime over the next day or so we should look at HST's article and see what shape it's in after being on the main page. Rlevse 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

The Burnham article made FA, thanks for the help. I looked at what you wanted to collaborate on next and chose Beowulf. I know nothing about it, but chose it from the list you made on Aug 31 on my talk page. I did a few edits to The White Album too. I'll do what I can on Beowulf. For starters, the caption to the Eadils image is WAY WAY too long. Rlevse 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Now it's at the point we need to find more refs. I know very little of this topic, but if I find one, I'll just put it in. If you find one, you can put it in or let me know where the ref is or give me its info and I'll put it in. There are some cite needed tags that need addressed too. Rlevse 13:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnham ref

Do you have the year, publisher, city, etc for this "Reverend Dr. Michael Forster, "The Origins of the Scouting Movement."", I can't find it on the web. Rlevse 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

HST

Pls see rv war on HST article, and talk page. Would appreciate input.Rlevse 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak! Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid.

Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

AoIA title

Hi BYT, it looks like we might get back into the renaming discussion. Glad you're around, esp since you know some of the history and worked hard on the synthesis, restructuring etc. By the way, through all that, didn't you ever feel that you might accept one of the Type II alternative titles?

Mind if I bother you about one thing? When writing in Talk, it's recommended to avoid over-formatting. If you could write in paragraphs, instead of bullet points, it would make the conversation overall easier to read and more concise. If need be, you could add (1) numbers or (a) letters to distinguish your various points. Sound ok? Thanks. Respectfully, HG | Talk 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

a) No problem.

b) Looking foward to the discussion. BYT 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that's a joke, but where's your emoticon? Seriously, at WP:TALK, it is deemed good practice to "Avoid excessive markup" and "Be concise." Anyway, what about the Type II titles? HG | Talk 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't keep track of all the groups and subgroups of potential titles. I think we're reaching a point where specificity would help to build consensus. Personally, I could live with, and find ample precedent for, Israeli apartheid controversy. Not debate, not seminar, not process, not comparison. None of that stuff works for me, it's like calling the article Alleged segregation-based unpleasantness among euphemistically unspecified Middle Eastern parties. We wouldn't throw those kinds of fig-leaves on any comparable topic. I can't speak for any of the other editors, but you asked, so I'm telling you: that's how I see it. It's a controversy. It would work to call it that. BYT 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that was a bit obscure. I meant titles like "Israel and apartheid" "Controversy over Israel and apartheid" and the like. (They're listed on the synthesis page.) With such titles, one could still have the current structure, which I gather you have some comfort with (considering that you helped improve it!). All the best, HG | Talk 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamofascism

There is a renewed controversy at Islamofascism and Neo-Fascism and religion. I think your comments and ideas would be of value. Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mediation"

Anyone concerned about the recent editing at Muhammad should see the section above: User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov#Mediation. BYT, you refused to talk on the talk page, instead saying that we needed "mediation." In doing so you ignored the rule that we are supposed to use talk pages before mediation. The concensus version was the result of amicable compromise on ... the talk page. You need to read it and respect the work Aminz, itaqallah, WilyD, and I put in. We've been though all this before. Arrow740 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arrow. The graph needs work. I'll post my idea on the talk page again, if it will help us to start working together constructively, as opposed to simply reverting. BYT (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Satanic verses

Hi BYT,

Hope you are well and doing fine. Regarding Satanic verses, please take a look at the new version of Satanic_verses#Academic_views, where a wide range of views is mentioned. I don't think singling out Burton would do justice to the matter. My idea is to mention little details so that the reader becomes curious and reads the whole article. I guess if you add one argument in favor, Arrow will add another one in reverse and .... Maybe the best way is not to mention any of the arguments... --Be happy!! (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also this section Satanic_verses#Modern_Muslim_scholars.27_views. To me personally, the argument of "the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims" is most appealing, but this seems to be a modern argument. In response to the argument of implausibility of Muslims fabricating this story, to me personally the argument that "widespread acceptance of the incident by early Muslims suggests, however, that they did not view the incident as inauspicious and that they would presumably not have, on this basis at least, been adverse to inventing it." seems most appealing. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Salaam Aminz -- I'll look it all over -- thanks for the links. Ma-salaam, BYT (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Zionism and 'Getting ready for the NPOV tag on that talk page

BYT, thank you for your support; I believe your post really helped. It took some time as I suspected, but I believe that it worked out reasonably well for the lede sentence. Other areas still require work but maybe for someone else. Take a look (including talk) if you haven't seen it for a while. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me

Salam Alaykum,

We're working on Imam Ali article to make it a good article. Can you please help me with it. God bless you--Seyyed(t-c) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Brandon, tags don't remain on articles until every single person agrees with every item in the article; rather, they remain until a consensus develops over the contents, or as long as unanswered objections remain to them. In the case of the article in question, all your objections have either been accomodated or responded to, sometimes multiple times, and simply asking the question again and again doesn't indicate any new issue. In addition, the consensus regarding the article content has been established. Finally, objections based on personal numbering schemes are meaningless. If you have any new issues, and want to suggest article changes based on that, please raise them on the Talk: page. Jayjg 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay -- thanks for the good note -- I guess I'd have to disagree with you on all of the issues I've raised, and I note (for instance) that your reasons not to include Gandhi in a responsible summary of Anti-Zionism, which we're required by WP:NPOV to make, still completely elude me. (Recently, you said we didn't have to summarize his views because they were covered on Anti-Zionism, which seems to miss the point; earlier, you told me that we didn't have to summarize his views because he wasn't a "Zionist thinker," a standard that appears nowhere in any policy I can see, and hasn't been applied to, for instance, the Muslims you've inserted in the article.)

Honestly, I think we may need some help if we're really going to improve the article in any meaningful way. Personally, I don't think the issues I've raised in recent days been "accommodated," as you put it. Let's reach out and find someone we both trust to help us work these issues out. BYT (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, I never made the arguments you make on my behalf. The reason why Gandhi isn't cited have been gone over at length, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a disruptive tactic. The article doesn't really need to be "improve in meaningful way", and certainly nothing you've suggested would have any hope of doing that; on the contrary. As has been stated before, and quite accurately, you've been editing this article for the past two years solely for the purpose of inserting negative information about Zionism into it - notwithstanding the couple of examples you've provided of very recent vandalism reversions, or insertion of criticism and strawman rebuttals of same. WP:NPOV is damaged by this kind of behavior. This isn't an issue between me and you, this is an issue between you and policy and all the other editors on the page. Jayjg 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I'm attributing positions to you that aren't yours, Jayjg. Every time I've proposed including material about Gandhi's position on Zionism, however, you've rejected the idea. Since I don't want to put words in your mouth, could you briefly explain why you feel we should not, in Zionism, summarize Gandhi's position, which shows up in Anti-Zionism? WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize, in the main article, all major Points of View in a "criticism of..." article. BYT (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Yes, thank you, I didn't notice you adding the notice to my page. Regarding the mediation, I notice you have only included me in it, even though several other people, including Emmanuelm, Ceedjee, Gzukier and TelAviv1 have voiced opinions on this issue. In fact, your removal of the material in question was reverted by someone else, not me. Please ensure that the proposed mediation includes all interested parties. Jayjg 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Zionism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of discussion – Talk:Eric Robert Rudolph

This is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes

Thanks for your response. I think that there is a systematic bias, but it operates at the article creation and expansion level, due to the demographics of Misplaced Pages. I am quite sure that once there is a well-written and comprehensive article on a mosque it will have no more problems than other articles to become a FA or TFA. Unfortunately I am not really interested in co-writing an article about the Mother Mosque of America. I am more interest in articles related to film, Africa, and international economics and that is also where my expertise is. Having said that, I have watchlisted this article, and maybe I will add tiny bits and support a nomination for FA or TFA, as long as the final article is well-written and comprehensive. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

help needed

hi Brandon I need some help in this article Criticism of Muhammad I want to add some sites that response to the critic but my links keep been removed without god reason.could you help me ? thank you Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:A2096399.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:A2096399.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Beyond mere christianity.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Beyond mere christianity.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz 06:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

I saw your post at WP Palestine talk and so would like to give you a warm welcome back. You'd be happy to know that WP Palestine has improved considerably in the last year and we'd be delighted if you could work with us again. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Islamofascism discussion

Hi! It's okay, if you prefer to keep it open for a while longer, I don't have a problem with it. I closed it because it's been a week (move discussions usually stay at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for a week before they're closed), and with that level of opposition there's really no way a consensus for the move is going to be formed by extending the discussion. That's just my opinion, of course, and you're free to disagree with it. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right about that, but since people really didn't start talking about this until I actually made the move, it would be interesting to see what other comments emerge. Thanks for your note. BYT (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)