Misplaced Pages

Please help

Hi Scott, This is Mystìc here, I've been blocked as a sockpuppet account of user:Lahiru_k, you've known me and you know for sure that my account is not a sockpuppet account. Please help me please.. 222.165.157.129 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mystìc, I'll take a look at what's going on and see how I might be able to be of assistance. (→Netscott) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bremelanotide

I think I got it. It was the easy case, and seemed pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you find anything went wrong. Tom Harrison 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Netscott,

Could you please have a look at this --Aminz 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I was about to do something like that :) I need to run now. Cheers, --Aminz 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for moving that. --Aminz 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Their accusations is getting more and more annoying.

Can I open an RfC over the article rather than over particular editors? --Aminz 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to have 3 comment on users but all together, since they are related. I don't think I can do that. Can I? --Aminz 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. I didn't notice that. Thanks --Aminz 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks. I'll start doing that. I need to gather the diffs. etc. etc. --Aminz 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5...

...is up at MfD. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5. Thought you'd like to know. Daniel.Bryant 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

You have NO right to post my ISP on MY userpage. It is totally unprovoked intimidation and probably illegal. You will be reported to Wiki Adminis immediately. Actions have consequences and you shall face them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)

I don't know what youre talking about where's your evidence. You are harassing me for no reason and will be reported to administrators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)

Anyone can have access to that information, there is a small link at the bottom of each IP talk page. I just post it on the talk page to help quickly identify problem editors who keep contravening Misplaced Pages policies like yourself. (→Netscott) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Hindu Caste System from Muslim Caste System

The article Indian Caste System is doing injustice against all other religions becaue Hindus have a strong Caste system based on religion. In India Islam is polluted by Hindus who converted to Islam but carried their Hindu Caste. But there is major difference between the two religions. Islam and our Holy Bokks do not support Caste System. Hindu Religion and its texts preached caste system. So we need to separate the Indian Caste System according to religions.Iqbal123 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Votestack spamming

Votestacking?

What is the basis for characterizing this as votestack spamming? In fact, I had already voted on the matter in question, but I don't see how anyone who didn't know me intimately could predict how I would have voted on this. Are you sure that this person was accessing only those he or she believed would be on one side of the issue? - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't examine his/her edits at all. Just remarking if this person was actually intending to stack on this matter, then they were foolish to include me. Did you look at my comments in the debate in question? - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at those edits, I see no sign of votestacking. I would expect the people contacted to have a wide range of views on the matter; many had already commented, and unless I am mistaken, you will not find any particular pattern in their views.

While this was clearly redundant, in that most of these people were clearly already aware of the discussion, I don't see any effort here to get a vote for one or the other side. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that, from what I can see, this person pretty much conformed to WP:SPAM#If you canvass. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I don't particularly think it's a big issue either but, for example, would you also want to block IZAK for doing pretty much the same with reference to the same discussion? I hope not. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it looked to me from whom he contacted that he was contacting people who had worked in this area and with no particular apparent bias in whom he was contacting. I certainly understand your concern, but I would have assumed good faith here. The block apparently came so quickly after the warning that he or she quite possibly never even saw the warning.

Again, no big deal. Your initial comment accused this person of "votestack spamming", and I saw no particular reason to think the characterization was accurate. That was my issue, nothing larger. - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking delete

I don't need you as my personal spam guard on my talk page, thankyou, and prefer to evaluate vote requests on a case-by-case basis. -- Kendrick7 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Please do not remove postings from my talk page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete content off my talk page

It is considered vandalism to do so. If you have something to say add it, don't delete what other people have written just because you disagree with it. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tnavbar header

Your updated version {{Tnavbar-header2}} actually looks like it fixed a bug in IE6 of {{Tnavbar-header}} -- I'm sure having to do with IE6's busted box model... :) Just never noticed since I primarily use FF. At work so only able to test with IE6 and FF2, but each example looks great right now with those browsers. // Laughing Man 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to do this:

... but am beginning to see the need for it. We haven't met before, I believe, but you might be interested in this and this. At least, I do hope you are. Hornplease 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hornplease, actually I haven't really interacted with Bakasuprman much. His animosity towards myself stems from my stating on a WP:ANI report that I suspected him to be a sock. Also the fact that I've been supportive of BhaiSaab has put me out of favor with him. The way that Bakasuprman goes around supporting punitive actions against me is funny to me actually because other than my suspicion of sockpuppetry about him I don't hold much against him. This is the case because I've really interacted very sparingly directly with him. Because this is the case, if ever I was to be helpful relative to what you're asking me, I'd have to do quite a bit of research. Forgive me for saying so but I've only been tangentially involved with the whole Hkelkar thing and I am very hesitant to involve myself further. Does that make sense? (→Netscott) 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are enough people stumbling around on the workshop page with little enough knowledge of the overall behaviour of the editors.

On the other hand, it would be nice to make a stand against the creeping POV-pusher type who has infiltrated this project recently. Only reason I'm wasting so much time on it, really. Hornplease 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nowrap/Nobr

Hi again NetScott,

Hello David, not sure which one should stay (I like the title of your creation better) but I thought you should know of the duplication. Cheers. (→Netscott) 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew of {{Nobr}} but must've forgotten about it... so, I've now moved {{Nobr}} (and docs) to {{Nowrap}}; hope Nobr's originator User:CesarB doesn't mind (have left him a pointer to here). Thanks for spotting, David Kernow (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:V?

(copied) You must have User:Oblivious's talk page watchlisted or been tracking my edits... you didn't hesitate to jump on Template:V. LOL! Very nice... :-))) (→Netscott) 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am creating a test template and I thought I should see how your new one works. I'm not sure I like how you have to write the switch part out 6 times but it looks pretty good. If I can think of a way around writing it out then I will let you know but I think it is just the way it is. I left a comment on User:Oblivious's talk page and it was still in my watchlist so I saw your comment on a new template. Rex the first 10:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netscott, I tired to put this template into {{Fluid}} but I got one to many "Template:" text. In this version I had:

{{view|talk|edit|template={{{{PAGENAME}}/Comments}}}}

but it just appeared as

] • ] •

on this page. Not sure if using {{PAGENAME}} works. Any ideas? Rex the first 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:La-Defense-is-not-part-of-P.jpg

Hoyla. I just got a message about your wonderful "clarification image" - it needs some more info for copyright purposes. Since the picture is yours, could you go and claim it as your own? This should clear things up nicely.

Thanks, and take care,

THEPROMENADER 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:New Tnavbar concept

Excellent. This was certainly needed by many and will give them the flexibility. I'll contribute to the template :) Nice work --Oblivious 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Bias

It seems good. I was thinking of filing conduct RfC; but "systematic bias" is another option. The problem is that these editors does not always remain civil. Some of them are also very inclined to edit-war. Not sure if "systematic bias" is precisely what we need. But on the other hand, I can find reliable sources explaining the roots of this bias.

I am still away from my hometown and can not be very active in wikipedia.

Cheers, --Aminz 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to see...

I wanted to see if you're still around editing the same article. Cheers. 128.122.253.196 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I will not continue to edit the article. You are quite a nice guy. 128.122.253.229 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

template cascades

I find it difficult to appreciate that hiding away template parameters in other templates is "facilitating access". It also means watching two pagesinstead of one. But, while I don't think this is a great idea, I don't actively oppose it either (I imagine it was discussed on some ethnic group wikiproject?) dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, I see your point, and I do not object. I do in fact welcome the effect that the data is hidden from inexperienced users clicking "edit" on some ethnicity article, because this sort of tabular data is subject to a lot of uncalled-for fiddling of numbers by anonymuses. dab (ᛏ) 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Netscott. Let me just briefly point out that the Box "Template:Arab ethnicity" still has some bugs in it — e.g. if you click on the v/d/e letters in top right corner you get to wrong "Arab people" pages. Also, there's the problem that a change to that box won't be reflected in the history of the Arab page, nor is it highlighted to those people "watching" the main Arab page. As for issues regarding the contents of the box itself, this is another topic, see my discussion here and here. Womtelo 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference converter

Hi, I've made a lot of articles with the

A sentence with a source.

syntax. I much prefer the contemporary reference notation we have (not because of the notation itself, but because it looks better at the bottom), but the whole convention is pretty opaque to me (it seems hard to use). If there's a way to convert these, I'd love to hear it. Thanks, ... aa:talk 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References in Templates

This issue has been known for a while, but I don't think anything will be done anytime soon. Probably best to work around it. That means either

• use html links for citations in templates
• put the citation text in the template, either hard-coded or with ref/note

In your case the template looks like it might be single-use. If so, couldn't you just put it into the article? Gimmetrow 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

email

I have emailed you personally regarding the issue. I'm not sure if you received it or not. MetsFan76 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Category:Anti-Semitic people

I've responded on my talk page. you can reply there if you feel the need to. Taxico 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:DAde

per the use of yet another IP i have reported him on WP:ANI here. if you have any additional information available or any other contribution, please do participate. ITAQALLAH 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Netscott.....I had no clue where to post that but people need to hear about this one. I almost fell off my chair laughing. MetsFan76 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Hi Netscott,

Please see my post to the "new antisemitism" talk page. Thanks --Aminz 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

If my diatribes come across as "well balanced" compared to the other editors on the talk page, that is not a good sign. :) I'm a little too close to this one right now. I'm thinking I should take a look at it in a day or so, and if it's still nuts, maybe we could ask an admin to take a look. They won't jump right into content disputes, but one can go through an "arbitration" process to try to settle points of fact and other disputes. They can also take action against vandals, but I'm not sure this one quite qualifies, unless he's focused solely on this article. If that's the case, that fact could also be brought to an admin's attention. Wahkeenah 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• That user is not quite an exclusively one-issue user, but has certainly done little else besides this page. Wahkeenah 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad for all your edits and how you've been keeping a close eye trying to maintain the quality on the page by the way. I myself am already spending way more time on that article then I'd like to, but it seems as if everytime I check there's some sort of POV-pushing (from the anti-richards camp in the beginning, then of course primarily one pro-Richards user right now) or crazy edit that degrades the article more than it helps. It drives one nuts because I want to assume good faith and I do think the individual actually thinks he's contributing, but for whatever reason just don't get (or refuse to accept) what they're doing is inappropriate... It's good to see there're several others editors who share the same neutral fact-based perspective. Tendancer 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand fully what that red-linked user "Bus stop" is getting at, but the problem is he insists that his own uncited viewpoint is sufficient. It's a never-ending loop, which is why I think it's a game he's playing, more than anything else. Aside from reverting any attempts to re-post the "laughter" stuff (for which you can request a block from an admin if it comes to that), I think the best response at this point is "stony silence". If no one answers his lengthy and repetitive essays, he'll get bored and move on. That doesn't always work, but often it does. Wahkeenah 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to that other red-linked user, "Bus stop" has a new issue to fight over now, the "body language expert". And it's trying to start a new round of debate, again with spurious reasoning. Wahkeenah 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I try to use terms like "troll" and "sockpuppet" with caution, and I haven't used them here. We had a far worse case on the "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" page some months ago, with a user named Carfiend. That user put himself on the threshhold of being banned, but then he disappeared. I'm just saying we have to be careful with this one guy. I think he's playing a game, and have said so, but we'll see. Meanwhile, I'm trying not to directly engage him anymore. Wahkeenah 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I broke my own rule, or bent it anyway. Any guesses what its next magical trick will be? Wahkeenah 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm, again. It occurred to me that its writing style was better than Bus stop's. There are several red-linked users on that page, some of whom have edited virtually nothing else, so it's a little hard to separate the real ones from the fake ones. Maybe we need to bring in a "typing language" expert. Wahkeenah 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sometimes you can tell if one user is the same as another through their writing styles (to use the term generously). I ain't no expert in that field, nohow. Wahkeenah 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I won't ask who that banned editor is. Sounds like a touchy subject. Just tell me it's not Carfiend, and we're good. Wahkeenah 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Good. And you don't want to know, either. Just as I don't. :) Wahkeenah 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

trivial

From the significant to the silly. I don't know French at all. Would I be safe in translating the expression "Tenez Les Cartes" as "Hold the Cards"? This is what they called the game in the latest James Bond film, which actually appears to be a brand of poker called "Texas Hold 'Em". Wahkeenah 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism

I read the three revert rule I was referred to, you said you agree with my assessment why don't you revert the page to reflect my edits or what is you opinion on this. Do you feel I'm in the wrong here?

I'm fairly new to making anything but minor typo edits to wikipedia and hope to stick around to make some real contributions but I don't want to get in trouble over this nonsense. Arch NME 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re DAde

Hi Scott. I just thought that the IP is being used by innocent people but i'll do next time as we got no other option. -- Szvest Ω 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

My guess would be that he is talking about you because his description of your comments matches. BhaiSaab 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot to me Mr. Stevenson. BhaiSaab 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your logic makes sense. But, I would have a problem with the deletion of his article for these reasons:

• News sources describe him as a internationally celebrated Islamic scholar and orator.
• We know he's real because up and around people.
• He isn't an internet personality like Ali Sina. An active user of the internet can garner a significant number of Google results simply by active participation in online communities. One of my screenames, for example, that I have so far only seen myself use, gets thousands of Google results. That doesn't make me notable by any means. "Netscott" gets over 9,000 results. I'm sure you know what I mean.
• The country of his origin is primarily not English. That gives Ali Sina an advantage in the English Google results and I'm sure there are reliable sources about Naik in Indian languages (I can't read them), but they are out there. BhaiSaab 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is quite a good suggestion. The only thing I'm worried about is that I might not even be here by that time, but I will follow your advice. BhaiSaab 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just also found that Naik is the author of at least five books. I'm surprised that isn't mentioned in the article. BhaiSaab 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take that as a compliment. Yes I followed that. :D BhaiSaab 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl accused me of following CltFn to five articles...yet Karl just followed me to about 20 articles. BhaiSaab 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party

Ah, yes, I forgot to add the banner. Thanks for catching that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re sprotecting Template:Tnavbar

Hi Scott,

Thanks David for doing that... I wanted to request that of you but as you've been involved in editing on it I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. Please don't hesitate to full protect should the need arise. (→Netscott) 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the recent addition-removal and suddenly realized some protection seemed appropriate; in case anyone does feel someone else should've protected the template, I'll ask someone else to pay a visit to confirm or unprotect. Yours, David (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it might not be correct to protect so please don't feel as though I was prodding you. I think sprotecting it is no-brainer myself. I must admit to dreading the thought of it ever being full protected without myself being in a position to work on it directly but I'm fully cognizant of the needs of the project easily outweighing such a relatively minor inconvienience.

Worry not; no such implication occurred to me!  If, sadly, full protection does arise, leave me (a pointer to) any edits you'd wish to make; by then it may be worth returning the template to semi-protected anyhow.

Also, you're welcome to respond here only if you'd prefer. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I copy posts so I can follow a thread in one place – at least, that's the theory!

Chuckle, David (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Is it not AFD convention to put the vote results at the top of the page when the discussion is closed? If so then please restore the results that I added.--CltFn 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

Thanks very much. I am aware that I have made 3 reverts. Jayjg argued that Stillman's quote doesn't refer to antisemitism because new-antisemitism started 6 years ago among Muslims. That's a pretty informative comment. I really didn't know that. I am not edit warring. Slimvirgin said that there was a confusion otherwise I wouldn't have added it again.--Aminz 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is on my side. I am adding his comment almost word by word. --Aminz 07:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you think the comment was not true? It might be at least true according to some scholars. I am waiting for Jayjg's sources. But sure, I will not add it again before consensus has achieved. --Aminz 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will not add it again. --Aminz 07:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Netscott, but there are people who are not really interested in reasoning. There are people who write things against the consensus of academic scholars. I am not saying they should be silenced but that's a pretty good term. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Aminz 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to get some sleep right now and so I can't fully get into discussing this but I see the word sooner as a tool to silence critics. I don't like such usage of language. People need to be free to openly (and validly) criticize without fear of being branded an "islamophobe" or a "new antisemite" which these terms do not tend to allow for. (→Netscott) 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to admit it because I'm not much of a fan of Ali Sina's style in his criticisms of Islam (I think he frequently relies on hate in his arguments which I absolutely abhor) but much of what he says here save for the Muslim bashing I agree with. (→Netscott) 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudoph

Peace to you Netscott --

This Washington Post article suggests he had a connection in the early 1980s with a group called the "Church of Israel," seemingly a racist strain of Christian practice that served as a stepping stone to Christian Identity. He was, of course, eventually to become a "lone wolf," which means acting alone and practicing plausible denials if caught... peace out, BYT 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Maior/User:Mactabbed/Meatpuppet posts/trolling

Fallout and Fallout 2

Stop reverting good faith edits on the Fallout and Fallout 2 articles. You are undermining the values of Misplaced Pages. Go revert some vandalism and stop wasting time. Air of reality 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, what makes you think Air of reality (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a banned user? -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. All I did was edit the Fallout page as I am a fan of the game and made an account to edit it, and all of a sudden he begins reverting my good faith edits! Even if I was a sockpuppet, why would he be reverting meaningful edits? That seems to go... against what Misplaced Pages is about. Maybe he should wait until I actually vandalize something before making rash decision? Air of reality 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy...

Reverting good faith edits and undermining the values of Misplaced Pages based on the ability of users to edit pages and improve them. You have spent many hours wasting your time trying to revert my efforts when all I have wanted to do is improve wikipedia, and this all stemmed from the evidence that I "vandalized" the Michael Richards article, when I really wasn't. And by the way, Mactabbed and Maior aren't the same person. Nice try though. Ad hominem2 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

12 angry men

why did you revert my edit on the 12 angry men page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Muck Raker (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

You are such an idiot. You don't even realize that you are HURTING wikipedia by protecting all of these pages and revering good-faith edits. It won't be along until I have made you get every article on wikipedia sprotected. Why don't you just give up this ridiculous game which only originated because you are fanatically pursuing the "no sock puppets" rule. I have not even vandalized, so you aren't even doing this to prevent vandalism, but merely to satisfy your sick fetishes. The Muck Raker 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your mistake. Your absent-mindedness and strict adherence to the rules will ruin wikipedia and you do not even realize it. You care more about your power trips than you do about improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Good luck, and know that for every 20 minutes you spend trying to get me banned, I spent about 5% that much time making a new account. The Muck Raker 04:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

12 Angry Men - Pointless Revert

Why do you keep making pointless reverts on 12 Angry Men? It isn't vandalism. Are you reverting it *just* because you don't want anon's running around editing some pages? That's not making a lot of sense; are you really doing _any_ good by making insignificant reverts that are justifiable? Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you going to draw a line before this turns into a witch hunt, or are you going to keep this up?

Oh, yeah. Block me if you'd please; I'm not a sock puppet (nope! not Mactabbed! sorry, different person here, not your regular ip switch). I appreciate your comments on my willingness to participate (Michael Richards); I'm not a Misplaced Pages junkie, but I can write a decent response. I certainly don't appreciate how you assume an articulate response on a debated subject is a sockpuppet; there's this thing called 'innocence' that comes into play... TechJon 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody Up There Likes Me (film) protected?

Why did you revert dozens of edits made to this page and why did you have it protected? I just watch the movie and want to update the plot summary, but I find that I am blocked from editting because my account isn't 4 days old? Why does the page, which is practically a stub, need to be protected? And why did you revert the edits made which expanded the plot summary? Rand Integer 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hy netscott

How many hours a day do you spend on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.66.92 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Sockpuppet

Ad hominem2 was a sock of who? TYou provided a link at some point in that spree, but I lost it. Viridae 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, needed to know what the name was for the indefblocked sock template. Viridae 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addoing the sprotected templates, I was wrting a notice at WP:ANI. Viridae 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Going

I'm going out. Wont respond for a while. Viridae 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a notice at WP:ANI too, if you want to list all the socks foudn so far, thjat would be great. Viridae 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a prophet

I have observed that there is a constant effort to introduce comporable language, using any contextual excuse, one consequence of which is to create very awkward English so as to preserve the "Islamic" meaning. The motive, so far as I can discern, is superstitious and existential: that to praise the prophet Muhammad, ideally while others are watching, is in itself to obtain rewards spiritual or in the afterlife. The proof that this is intended is found in the edit warring to preserve otherwise inexplicable strings of text, such as the one at issue. I am thusly inclined to eliminate any language which might reasonably be suspected as having been influenced or motivated by this trend.Proabivouac 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

See you in a year or so Mr. Stevenson, maybe. :) BhaiSaab 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Protected your user page. Looks like aeropagitica blocked the IP address. Let me know when you want the protection lifted. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sock to block

Would you indef. Eclipse0468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? Ordinarily I'd ask User:Pschemp to do so as she's a bit more familiar with this user's pattern of behavior but I've been keeping her busy. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, done and tagged as a sock. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About Jyllands Posten Cartoons

Can you please answer my one question? If there are total 100 people around and 80 out of them want to see the naked sisters of remaining 20. Will you show them? Where does this voting issue come about showing cartoons of Jyllands Posten? You are doing that same thing for which Jyllands Posten is being convicted by Muslims. Are you really fair? and why are you linking the cartoons to their huge hight resolution size? VirtualEye 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sefringle

Well, that page was something different--not anti-Islam. Sefringle is pretty new so I don't know what's going on--I haven't seen enough of his editing. My main interest is to keep this at least somewhat academic. By thinking 'criticism of Islam' sections don't belong doesn't necessarily mean I have any interest in not making Islam look bad. In fact, I think to represent any pre-modern religion it _is_ going to look bad in many respects. Modernity has given us a morality with values that differ greatly from the past. It has been a part of Islamic jurisprudence that you could have sex with slave girls you captured in battle. When that is reported it's going to look bad--that's how things go because we're judging the past based on our new morality. I think there is a tendency to make Islam look bad--and I'm not fully sure to what extent it's warranted. I know basic Catholic teaching so I will use my example as compared to Catholicism. In the middle ages Catholic teaching was pretty... interesting... in some ways. However, you get to the late 19th / mid 20th centuries and you get massive institutional reform. Rerum Novarum, Second Vatican Counsil--these were unambiguous moves into a new theology. They were also more theological than legal. Now, in Islam you have a much more legal framework. The rulings that get passed around are mostly fiqh rulings--and sometimes they get into awfully specific subjects. There also hasn't been such a break from the past as with Catholicism. My point is that the values of modernity came out of a Christian history. I mean--it's a really odd and complex relationship between the two... but, it's almost natural that the colonized people are going to develop an alternate morality... and most Muslim countries were colonized. So, in short: yes, we do have a problem with trying to make Islam look bad... but I think some Muslim (here and in general) do try to obfuscate--or feel a tension in some things that their co-religionists believe and preach. It's very hard and I do try to deal with these things neutrally... but I think some Muslim editors here see neutrality is making Islam look just as good as Christianity. Do you understand what I'm saying? and... do you agree that this may be the case? Or, do you just think I hate Muslims now :) In any case, I think these are serious issues that are very hard to judge... but, there are plenty of obviously non-neutral things that we should work on correcting. gren グレン 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)