Misplaced Pages

Yeah man, totally. Totally. Funny, had the urge to play some Floyd (on piano) between J.S.Bach and Jerome Kern. No doubt the neighbors were puzzled.

I do hope you enjoyed the summary of 48:29.

Timothy Usher 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MX44 09:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, tell us a little about where you went and how it was ... MX44 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Wikiethics

Netscott, if you try to be supportive and do not ruin my edits the things will be better. It is unacceptable that you stroke my edits. Regarding your suggestion, it is too late for it and do not work as I said before. Why people who is agains the proposal and you for example are not listing the parts you dislike? Resid Gulerdem 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can choose to wait untill the proposal is complete then, instead of ruining the discussion. Resid Gulerdem 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation report

While you didn't violate the letter of the three revert rule, you most certainly violated its spirit. Please attempt to discuss things with Resid Gulerdem further instead of using an edit war/block to make your point. I understand your frustration with the poll summary, but please use some of the dispute resolution options available to you. .:.Jareth.:. 04:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

I just wanted to see if you were stalking me. And you were. --Irishpunktom\ 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does. --Irishpunktom\ 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you checked, you will find that I have previously worked on that page, meaning it will be on my Watch list less I choose to remove it. --Irishpunktom\ 08:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Hi,

Interesting, but this is a letter to the editor. Conceivably, if I wrote a letter making an important point, and in the process of so writing included an entirely new word coinage, that also would be published. Hence, I consider such letters evidence of informal use only. WP is not a dictionary, and does not aim to compile a list of every word used in common speech. Only notable topics (with, I'll add, an accepted common name in standard English, or their language of origin) are encyclopedic. A linguist might find this letter useful as a primary source, but it does not substantially affect the case for the notability of this topic at WP. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If User:Dpbsmith's argument is, in your thinking, the primary reason for supporting the deletion, your choice is entirely logical. As I noted at DRV, I have two grounds for my vote, and thus am not so convinced. In the strictest sense, I should probably strike one of my two grounds in light of your evidence, but I am not that much of a stickler! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues with statues

I seem to remember that you were involved in a discussion about the Buddha statues and the how and why of their destruction. Then, you'll probably find this interesting: Azate 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thx

... for the warning Tajik 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Revert

Why have you decided to remove the following valid info:

The Mughals were led into India by Babur who had been born in Central Asia in 1483. Babur's victory at Panipat in 1526 established the Mughal Empire and ended the reign of the Delhi Sultanate.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, now the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, now the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer.

What, of this, do you have a problem with. I did not add this info to the artcile, Tajik removed it, I re-added it, and now, for no apparent reason, you are removing it - Why?

• Babbur was born in Fegana in 1483 .. Are you disputed this? - if not, why are you removing it?
• Babur did rule Kabul for twenty years prior, obtaining it in 1504 .. Are you disputing this? - if not, why are you removing it?
• "Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins" - Have you a problem with this? Why? You are going againt the Encyclopedia Brittanica, not to mention a whole series of scholarly works.. Do you really dispute this? - if not, why are you removing it?
• "the term ‘Mughal’ by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk." - What part of this do you disupte? - You must agree that its a word of Persian origin, for it is in the opening paragraph, written as دولتِ مغل too. That it was pejorative? do you dispute that? It was, read Baburs writing, the baburnama to see how he viewed himself a Turk.

Explain yourself. --Irishpunktom\ 09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • That answered nothing! Which of those points you have chosen to remove from the article do you disagree with, and why ?--Irishpunktom\ 10:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott,

you might be interested in this, which I posted a couple of weeks ago on the Talk:Babur page:

• Babur himself considered the term 'Mongol' (مغل) to be somewhat derogatory, and it was in fact a misnomer applied by sixteenth century Europeans to the rulers of India, possibly because of memories of the earlier Mongol invasions. Thackston writes:

"History has conspired to rob Babur not only of his fame as a Central Asian sovereign over the kingdom of Kabul for much longer than he was in the subcontinent, but also of his primary identity as a Timurid by labelling him and his successors as 'Mughals' - that is, Moghuls, or Mongols - an appellation that would not have pleased him in the least. In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianised form of the Mongolian kürügän, 'son-in-law', a title he assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess. Nonetheless, Europeans, recognising that there was some connection between Babur's house and the Mongols but ignorant of the precise relationship, dubbed the dynasty with some variant of the misnomer Moghul (Mogol, Mogul, Maghol etc.) and made the name synonymous with greatness." Wheeler M. Thackston The Babur-nama (New York) 2002 pxivi

Thackston uses the term 'Turco-Mongolian' throughout to describe Babur's ethnicity, insofar as that is relevant. He certainly spoke and wrote in Turkish. The term 'Moghul' properly refers to the ruling dynasty of Moghulistan or Jatah (roughly speaking northern Chinese Turkestan, or Dzungaria), which was ruled by descendants of Genghis Khan's son Chagatai and is hence sometimes known as the Chagatai Khanate. Its history is somewhat obscure, but the principal source is Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat's Ta'rikh-e Rashidi. The author of this work was Babur's cousin, and on pxliii of Thackston's introduction to the Babur-nama he quotes from p97 of the Elias & Denison-Ross translation, which illuminates at once the unity of culture amongst the Turco-Persian Timurid elite, and the meaning given by contemporaries to the name 'Moghul'

"I heard that Yunus Khan was a Moghul, and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other Turk of the desert. But when I saw him, I found he was a person of elegant deportment, with a full beard and a Tajik face, and such a refined speech and manner, is seldom to be found even in a Tajik."

A distinction thus has to be made between notional ethnicity, (turco-mongol) and culture & language (turco-persian). Sikandarji 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-islamic POV

Ned, I will not deny that I do not hold a very favourable opinion to Islam. Nevertheless, I attempt to source my material as well as possible, as do many other users which share my Islam-critical POV. Saw you censored IrishPunktom as well as me, so you keep maintaining standards of fair play (which I cannot say of several other Misplaced Pages administrators). My sincere thanks and compliments for this. Regards, Germen. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Is there any reason you reverted my edits? Germen has been doing this for several months now and I sincerely think that you should read his edits before reverting. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please stop reverting, the information is very pov. We can't use bible.ca or any of the other small Christian personal webpages that were added any more that we can use an Islamic extremist website. And the section that says "Non-religious reasons for conversion" is definitely something that is biased and made up of nonsense on what Germen thinks are 'reasons'. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Yes I am discussing on the talk page right now. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...no=

Not all of them are just British English variants. Vkasdg 00:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically I did not do anything against the rules that are stated in the hidden text of the article. Vkasdg 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd really like to see me break the 3RR rule, wouldn't you? Vkasdg 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would just be following your example. Vkasdg 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I hate the consensus. Why does Misplaced Pages have to shove those pictures in my face? Vkasdg 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And how about other Muslims? No one's forcing you to waste your time either. Vkasdg 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe after a while. I wouldn't want to follow your example. Vkasdg 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when are "minsters", "Incitors", "reponded", "communique", "adherants", and "pictoral" examples of British English? If you care too look in a dictionary, you'll find that they are just wrong. And I did that WP:AN thing for you. Vkasdg 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright so now you've done the WP:AN thing as well. Congratulations. The least you could do is fix the spellings you supposedly corrected, because if I were to try to correct you would revert it due to your obvious paranoid edits. Vkasdg 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Any honorable Muslim would not want to see his Prophet defamed. Vkasdg 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And my block log doesn't reflect anything (yet). Yours on the other hand, does. Vkasdg 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I can throw a physical block at this user, but I cannot block from wikipedia. Sorry but i am not and never will be an admin. Mike _{(T C)} 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tricky

I like your style. Netscott 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thanks. Ditto for you. I'm so sick of the censorship police..its nice to find someone who disregards them. Netpari 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

bwduca

Regarding the PT-141 article discussion edit:

I have re-written the approach to emphasize and expand the case. I am not par se anti-drug as you call it, in fact just the opposite. However PT-141 represents a unique public health risk that needs to be discussed. I don't think it inappropriate to solicite for grass roots organization on the wiki discussion for PT-141.

I think with my last edit that I am well within the spirit and meaning of the "discussion" page, however to satisfy your request allow me to direct you to http://www.fsd-alert.org/ by Dr. Leonore Tiefer, PhD (Psychology).

Fair enough. Hold my discussion to a higher standard. I will do some research on the topic and get back to the article with some links to respectable sources. Thanks for pointing out the Wiki best practices, etc.

Bwduca 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of wikitalk

Is a request for more information to be added to an article not within the bounds of what the wiki talk should be used for?--Drewlew 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon vandal

Just FYI, reported the cartoon vandal. Thanks for being on this, too. IronDuke 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I maybe should have waited until you put in the last warning template, but I think admins will get the picture -- oh, he's just been blocked. There we go. Still need the link? IronDuke 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanket revert

Do you understand what a blanket revert is? This was not a blanket revert, because it took the information you added and placed it in the correct area. A Blanket revert completely ignore previous edits and reverts to the older version regardless. As you can see from This comparison that is not what I did. --Irishpunktom\ 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Three names could be a subsection to Military, but a seperate section is messy and wrong. Further, this is yet another occasion where your first edit to an article comes less than 24 hours after I edited it last, coincidence perhaps. --Irishpunktom\ 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved the people in that section to a more accurate section - What section doo you believe the philosopher should be moved to ? --Irishpunktom\ 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV like that is not acceptable in a section like that especially since the only source for those people is the United States Department of Defence or the intelligence agencies. We don't even really know if they are Muslim. Because Irishpunktom is already discussing this with you here, let's finish the discussion here. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have also moved the military ones into their own section and kept the alleged terrorism ones separate. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In view of your concerns for POV I've renamed the "Soldiers, figherts, Jihadists" section to "Military and Terror Related". Netscott 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Those in the "Convicted of Terrorism" section include and individual from a country other than the U.S. Netscott 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're actually a bit wrong, there are three seperate individuals who's been convicted in three seperate countries for terrorism. Who's pushing POV now? Netscott 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion here so I can see previous comments. Your "look whose doing something" now isn't helpful. Which three countries convicted them? If they are held by the United States then the US is the country. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Which of those are blind reverts? We don't need a special section for them, they are still part of the alleged terrorist list and I didn't change the respective countries part now, so what is the concern? --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. Are you even reading my compromise edits? All I said is that they are all alleged ones, convicted ones are already identified as compromise. We don't need to write that they are convicted and alleged too when there is already entire sentences about them. What are you trying to do? --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my first edit only took place once so why are you still changing it? The thing is that even if they are convicted, the terorism is only alleged.Adding more disputed material every time is not the way to deal with this. I am fine with it for now. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional problematic behaviour of Anonymous Editor can be found at the Religious conversion article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

La Convivencia

Yes, I am concerned about WP:NOT, and after looking at the article, I wasn't quite sure what the article is about and how widely accepted this term is. If the article is about a period in Spanish history, then the title "Convivencia" will be highly contentious given that it's not universally accepted to denote the period. If it is about the mutual influence of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures at that place and time, then it might be interesting, but again I'm not sure as to how accepted this term is. Do you know many scholarly sources apart from Glick et al that use this term? Pecher 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Policy"

Editing through open proxies (yes, I tested them and blocked them indefinitely as such) is a violation of policy (see ). Using various identies to gain an advantage in an edit war and circumvent the WP:3RR is also a violation of policy. One week seems more than fair in this case. — Apr. 10, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

And yes, he has been previously warned about editing anonymously about the anonymous editing. Checkuser would be pointless here as he was not logged in as "Germen" when he was using the open proxies. I don't know what the edit war is really about and I don't care. I do suspect he will eventually be banned for his behavior. — Apr. 10, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Re: Open proxies

All blocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I'll be logging off in a few minutes (as soon as I finish referencing an article), just to give you a heads up. If I'm still around, I'll be glad to block them, otherwise I'll block them when I log in later. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you can't find anyone around, just drop them by anyways and I'll block them when I return. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vkasdg

I've blocked him indefinitely. I originally only blocked him for 24 hours because that account had never been blocked before. I'm surprised nobody had done it before. User:Zoe| 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim converts list

Ehm, semantic problem with this fellow Jamal Lindsay. It is proven that he engaged in terrorist activity, nevertheless he was not convicted because Western jurisdiction does not apply for the afterlife. Do you agree for creating a third section? --Xorox 10:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principe. The problem is that other people are much more knowledgeable in 'positive' converts than I am and I believe the task of adding positive converts is in their safe hands. I try to stay NPOV and checking sources as well as possible. What do you think about the idea of adding a new section "Suicide bombers"? --Xorox 11:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

May be you should have more faith in the good intentions of our fellow editors. As bonafide Misplaced Pages contributors, they will take Misplaced Pages informational quality to heart and they will be pleased by our hard work, e.g. in restructuring the "not yet classified" section which was very unreadable. Please have more faith in your fellow Muslim Wikipedians, which most certainly do not meet the unjustified prejudices against Muslims.--Xorox 11:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, when I stumble upon one, I will add him or her to the appropriate category.--Xorox 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added a positive convert, too. --Xorox 11:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He is military related and that's good enough. We don't need a separate section for everyone. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The section says military related. What are you talking about? --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's very pov. We have so many sections for people who one country claims are terrorists or bombed something when it's clear that one section could fit all of them. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could say that for your edits? --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Fine, then remove statement, and add heading. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumors or claims can be worth noticing, though. Check the articles, they did put some convincing arguments. --Xorox 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked your references to Misplaced Pages guidelines. regarding those:

• Middle East Forum and their Middle East Quarterly seems to be a bona fide think tank. There were claims by the Mufti of Cyprus that he has converted. There was a corroborating newspaper publication (Evening Standard, Oct. 15, 1996).
• Also rumours and hoaxes can be WP:notable, see for instance the Protocols of Zion article. As long as it is stated that they lack substance. --Xorox 11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Like you, I am not intending to start an edit war. I will follow your suggestion to start a page "Rumoured converts to Islam". Is this OK with you? --Xorox 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your prophetic qualities were remarkable :) --Xorox 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm retar..

Ya... sorry... I'm not sure what was going through my head.... KI 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this danish pastry-mohammaden thing for real or was that vandalism? KI 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

open proxy

that one's now blocked indefinitely. thanks for the note.--Alhutch 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

any time. one question though, i'm not that familiar with the policy on open proxies. i know they aren't allowed, but i believe I read somewhere that the IP address is supposed to be unblocked after it has been determined that the proxy is closed or something like that. can you shed any light on this? thanks, --Alhutch 03:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info, i will read up on those pages. keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikijihad template

Warning: this page attracts religiously-motivated vandals on a wikijihad as seen on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. They may use anonymous IP addresses or sock puppets to delete useful information. Check this pages edit history to determine if anything useful has recently been deleted.Timothy Usher 04:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Muhammad

• 02:34, 14 April 2006 first revert.
• 02:37, 14 April 2006 Actually edited and clarified what the link showed.
• 02:40, 14 April 2006 first revert to new clarified edit.
• 02:42, 14 April 2006 second revert to new clarified edit.

User:Joturner made mention of my "subsequent addtions" here.

I did not violate 3RR,please unblock me. Netscott 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was clearly acting in good faith re the WP:3RR, and quit reverting when he thought he'd run out. Further, he did discuss his changes on the talk page. It is rather Anonymous editor who declined discussion. Netscott should be unblocked.Timothy Usher 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy Usher, perhaps you could drop a note on Joturner's talk page for me or an admin? Thanks! Netscott 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try drop a note on User_talk:Pschemp's page. Netscott 04:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR is not a license to make three free reverts. Even if you weren't technically in violation of the 3RR, you were edit warring. Edit warring is bad. A break will do you good. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this have happened were the other warring editor not an admin? I suspect not. And if edit warring is bad, and a break does edit warriors good, wouldn't the other party also benefit from such a break?Timothy Usher 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock conditioned on the promise that NetScott not edit Muhammed for the next 24 hours. If he edits the page in the meantime, he should be reblocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly Martin for taking the time to understand this and being fair in your deciscion to unblock me. Netscott 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Netscott. I'd do the same for any editor (well, almost any editor) who I see being treated unfairly. I suspect the underlying problem here was that the content of "extreme Muhammad" section was deeply and understandably offensive to the admin in question. I'm very impressed that you took the unblock as a chance to apologize to those offended.Timothy Usher 04:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I try to be as documentary as possible and avoid POV regarding my edits to articles. I am sorry if I failed in doing so and am looking forward to your recommendations for improvement regarding this matter. --Xorox 11:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

Hi Netscott. Thanks for the note. I prefer to try convincing a vandal to stop, using warnings, rather than block them outright. We should really start with a {{test1}} or {{test2}} as described in Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. As happened in this case, the user was given three warnings and still blocked very quickly - so little further damage was done. Going straight to a {{test4}} can stop the vandalism slightly faster but, in my opinion, it can also lead to bad feeling, increasing the chance of future vandalism and reducing the chance of turning a vandal into a useful contributor (this does happen). Cheers TigerShark 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but in future I'd still take the same course of action as I did this time. In this case it is just a shame that the other users who reverted didn't take the extra step of placing a warning, as you did. Cheers TigerShark 13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused rename

While I oppose the actual rename proposed, I do appreciate the convivencia spirit in which it was made. It seems you've been taking lots of heat recently, and I wanted you to know that I do realize you have the best intentions. Good luck. -- GRuban 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciated your comments regarding La Convivencia on my user talk page. I'm thinking it might be nice to start an Esperanza type of editor base called La Convivencia to really hit home the need for such a spirit. Netscott 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my use of convivencia was inspired by your use of it on your user page; I thought that would be a good word for what you were trying to achieve with your proposal, and an admirable goal. But I'm not sure that it is missing from the current Misplaced Pages:Esperanza project. I think they'd be glad to have you. -- GRuban 00:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns about Religious Converts to Islam on my talk page

Please can you explain what you mean, as I am afraid I do not understand you. Did I do anything wrong? --Xorox 09:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina Varroni and other supposed non-notables.

Indeed, Sabrina Varroni is notable because she was the centre point of a civil rights controversy regarding wearing a burqa and warrants even a separate category under Criminal-associated ("controversies"). The same holds for Jeremiah Aucliffe (PhD holding scholar) and Michael Young (editor of a Lebanese periodical). I apologize for my haste judgment. In order to spark a debate whether interviewees of journalists warrant a separate category per se, I created a subcat at Journalists and writers. --Xorox 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad page madness

Not sure if you're allowed back there or not...but I've been tag-teamed, and recent tag-teamer edits are misguided to say the least - I've tried to engage in discussion to no real avail (and why should there be, there are two of them and only one of me) - and I can't rightly overturn them without community support. Oh well, such is life.

How have you been?Timothy Usher 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please explain your "References in connection resp. relative to" weasle word change on the talk page. Raphael1 11:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your note

I'll try to watch more closely. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 09:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism, and...

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Per your request, I unblocked that user with the multiplication mathematical symbol because of the edits that they made. I am not inclined to unblock the other users that registered at this time with other characters.--Adam 12:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

open proxies

I've never been able to figure out which users are using open proxies. How do you tell? User:Zoe| 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. User:Zoe| 03:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Thanks.  :) User:Zoe| 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Its not that big a deal - Cleanup tags either go at the top or bottom of an article, or at the top of a section if they relate solely to that section. --Irishpunktom\ 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand you, but, more than just the external links need to be cleaned up, and that is why it was moved to base. --Irishpunktom\ 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No! More than just the external links need to be cleaned!! --Irishpunktom\ 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If linkspam is your reason for removal then say as much. Removing external links because you disagree with their POV is wrong. --Irishpunktom\ 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A link does not have to be NPOV - Most aren't. Its a reflection of anothers POV, and its only place in Misplaced Pages can be as a citation or as an external link. Most external links concerning religion and religious topics tend to promote one POV. --Irishpunktom\ 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't go playing the victim here. You know that you cannot Copy and paste from a Commercial venture into Misplaced Pages and save it as a total article. Its just wrong. --Irishpunktom\ 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is a copyright Violation, and if it wasn't it would not be suitable for an article. Compare with more established written declarations, like the US Bill of rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - neither of which simply copy the text into the article... even though neither of these would be CopyVios. --Irishpunktom\ 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel

Hi and thanks for your contributions. I must say I don't think the term "infidel" is somehow especially characteristic of heirarchical religions; Sunni Islam, for instance, is not terribly heirarchical. The word "heirarchical" was initially inserted by User:Mike18xx without any clear basis for that. Kafir can indeed be a derogatory term, but first and foremost it is an Islamic legal term that simply acquired derogatory connotations over centuries. Pecher 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article Giaour indeed says that the term ceased to be pejorative, although I'm not sure what the source of this idea is. On the other hand, the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on kafir says that giaour is also abusive: "kafir had developed into a term of abuse, so frequent in the Turkish form giaour ". Pecher 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that Giaour is sourced to the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 Edition; I'd lend more credence to the Encyclopaedia of Islam for the simple reasons that it's much newer and written by specialists. Pecher 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If my English doesn't fail me, after the "as well as" construction we use the form of the verb agreeing with the noun or pronoun preceding the "as well as". Correct me, if I'm wrong. Pecher 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Infidel

Yes indeed you broke 3RR, as I'm pretty sure you knew. 8h. Std rules apply: promise to be good and stick to 3RR in future, and (let us say) 1R on that article for the next few days, and I'll unblock you. William M. Connolley 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's very fair and I promise to be good and avoid reverting (and not view 3RR as a right). To be honest I didn't think that I had broken 3RR because I had been making various edits to the text as we went along, but was absolutely sure that Irishpunktom had. When I reviewed the history I then realized that I could be considered in violation too so in making my Irishpunktom report I decided to in include myself in the interests of full disclosure. Netscott 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're unblocked, be good or I double it... you'll probably find yourself blocked by the autoblocker after I unblock you... post here if so. William M. Connolley 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley, you are correct however in that the Autoblocker's still got my number. Seems to be a disjunction between the systems. ;-) Netscott 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be good to go now. I'm going to try and read up a bit more on the word kafir so that I might be able to edit the infidel article will all of the NPOV it correctly deserves. Netscott 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand, so add it is seen as derogatory by some. The Islam on line site is good.. but, a site on flower Bulbs from Holland?--Irishpunktom\ 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about lilies, but as it's Dutch I'd guess its origin to lie in the colonial/racist sense of kafir rather than from the Arabic/Islamic sense of unbeliever.Timothy Usher 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done

Sockpuppetry on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Greetings please be aware of this Request for Check User. ScottRR 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a sockpuppet to avoid a block on any violation. User:Raphael1 and myself have edit histories (Raphael has more than 1000 independent edits) that are virtually independent outside of the Muhammad cartoons article. Your asinine notice has been removed.

The fact that Raphael1 has over 1000 edits and you do not is the primary reason that it would appear that you with only approximately 40 edits but have such similiar editing patterns and tendencies particularly while he is blocked is why it seems that you are a sockpuppet for him (if not a proxy). Netscott 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you were right about the sockpuppetry, it certainly has nothing to do with Raphael1. You're the only sockpuppet. ScottRR 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need permission to copy your userpage. By using Misplaced Pages you're agreeing to the Free documentation license found at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and it states "to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." ScottRR 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I'm really a sockpuppet, who's sockpoppet am I? Yours, Raphael1, or someone elses? :) ScottRR 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then there's no need to blame Raphael, is there? ScottRR 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone.Timothy Usher 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm shocked and disturbed. ScottRR 05:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No?

You're not? Well darn, I thought I'd found a new recruit for the GLBT cabal....Are you interested in signing up? I can offer you a discount at Prada and free body glitter if you join up today! :-D

On a serious note, keep me informed of any more suspicious users; I've got my eye on a couple, but I could certainly do with someone else who is more "on the front lines" watching. Essjay 07:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh! I hate that you've yet again shut down my disruptive accounts!

"well User:Vkasdg seems to have no qualms about dragging other editors who are a bit more ethical into his ridiculous bad faith edit wars. Nice job there Mr. NYU.edu".

You assumed it was him. That's not my fault. 147.91.173.31 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually your completely idiotic actions at the time of his block was all the excuse I needed to finally seal the fate of your pathetic sockpuppets and expose you for who you were. Your edits up to this point have been so loserly. Hopefully, if your last message on Essjay's talk page is any indications you'll stop wasting everyone's time and actually try to benefit Misplaced Pages from here on out. Your editing really sunk to a new low when you impersonated User:Raphael1 and dragged him into your pathetic editing games. Netscott 07:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"You're edits up to this point have been so loserly" Well you're assuming that I've made no constructive edits, but that's because you're unable to link any IP addresses I've used with the account I use to make constructive edits. I didn't impersonate anyone - you assumed it was him and was foolish of you to do so. I told you myself that I was not Raphael. You chose not to believe Raphael101, again, because you're always so suspicious. 147.91.173.31 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You logic is truly pathetic... get a clue, regging User:Raphael101 wasn't impersonation? Get a life already. Netscott 07:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

lmao...the person who always "happens" to be online when I make some edits is telling me to get a life? Priceless. 147.91.173.31 07:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Next time you start screwing with the cartoons images you can be sure that you'll be shut down rather quickly... it seems I'm starting to develop a bit of an inside track on combatting your nonsense. Netscott 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If I continue, I'll be sure to devise new methods of nonsense. But I most likely won't... :) 147.91.173.31 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you do seem to have a mild bit of intelligence so hopefully you'll refrain from idiotic editing and focus on beneficial editing as you said you would on Essjay's talk page... but I won't hold my breath. Netscott 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, you're not aware of my "good account." 147.91.173.31 07:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually been quite fun to see you get so riled up at times and wasting so much time on me, but I tire of it. 147.91.173.31 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, chances are better than 50/50 that I'll find it... then I'll see to it that that account is shut down as well. I'm nearly 100% sure that I've tangled with that account... and it just takes a bit of intuition to root it out. Netscott 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You want to shutdown an account that has only made good edits? LOL. You've never tangled with the account, and you never will. 147.91.173.31 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw...Arkmar and Godwalking are not me. 147.91.173.31 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know when I say nonsense, I mean nonsense. :-) Netscott 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

;-)

Normally, I don't let my blood pressure get that high. --BostonMA 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

removed my db

Sorry, seemed like someone had duplicated content for no reason. Quick fingers I guess ;) porges 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work!

Hello Netscott. I just want to commend you on your excellent work on the " Muhammed cartoons" Were you get your strength to deal with all the s*** some of the more disruptive elements on Misplaced Pages throw your way is a mystery to me, but I sure am glad that someone makes sure that even "hot topics" like the "Muhammed cartoons" stay objective and informative. Best of Wishes The.valiant.paladin 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Timothy Usher 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much fellas. It takes a lot of work to combat the extremely disruptive elements on that article (and others) but I believe strongly in the right to free speech and consider this doing my part to support such a right. I fear that if efforts aren't made in support of such freedoms, they will begin to wither and die and the world will start to approach a de-facto Orwellian state with creativity and expression becoming more and more suppressed particularly when individuals are forced to self-censor due to threats from extremist and violent elements. Netscott 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BNP

Netsott, I appreciate your concerns, but, because the image is Fair use image (as I understand it) I can not censor it or alter it in any way, just make it a low-res image so it cannot be re-distributed. If I am wrong I will change it. --Irishpunktom\ 08:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually

I don't see a 3RR vio (I see 3 reversions). Also, I wasn't heeding his words. I was going to unblock anyway. --Woohookitty 09:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Actually if it happens again, I'd recommend posting to the administrator's noticeboard about it if you haven't tried that route already. AIAV can be useful but it's not really meant for long term problems. --Woohookitty 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. It's a good way to give admins a "heads up" on stuff like that so people are more informed than I was. :) --Woohookitty 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Allah = God

Will it be enough if I show a quote from Maimonides? --Aminz 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Are you a jew? I don't think so, because you don't know Maimonides. --Aminz 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/novak.html --Aminz 06:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See this: http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=255&o=2400

Jews can enter mosques but not churchs. --Aminz 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you passed 3RR on Depictions of Muhammad (not that I will report it) --Aminz 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Your last edit is fine with me. thx. --Aminz 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad too. But please note that I compromised. --Aminz 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

True, we both compromised :) --Aminz 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please allow Aminz to continue to improve wikipedia in this way. Allah is from al-ilah "the god" and simply means God as opposed to god. There's no issue here. He's just translating Arabic terms into English, the language in which these articles are supposed to be written.

The other objector, if you're wondering, is Anonymous editor. I'd tried to do this several weeks ago, only to have him revert. As he's an admin (and only for that reason), I conceded. For obvious reasons, Aminz is more likely to be allowed to do it than I. It is the right thing to do. There are kinds of things Jews, Christians and Muslims can dispute, but this Allah/God thing is a needless controversy, reflecting only misunderstanding.Timothy Usher 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Anonymous Editor!, If you are a native speaker of English then you know that generally speaking the word God for the average speaker sooner refers to the Christian concept of god. I absolutely believe that what Aminz is doing is 100% detrimental to Misplaced Pages in that readers are less likely to learn of Allah and what that name means in the context of Islam. Netscott 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion's moved here, I move from Aminz' page: How do you hold the meanings of "God" and "Allah" to differ? Keep in mind, too, that Arabic language Bibles use Allah for God, with no associated controversy.Timothy Usher 08:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mention other languages when we're discussing the English wikipedia! Why are you limiting yourself only to the Abrahamic concepts of God? Netscott 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Because these are Abrahamic religions with a shared concept of God. And as you say, we are trying not to mention other languages in the articles where it's avoidable; translations are always preferred.Timothy Usher 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I admit and I understand that you should get that impression. I apologize, but this issue is exteremely important to me. Maybe you haven't encounter with people who say "Allah" is "Satan". I will bear the sin of breaking a compromise on my shoulder. --Aminz 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. Please see my comments on Aminz's talk. &#0151; JEREMY 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you saw the truth. I broke my compromise. My english is not good. I apologize. --Aminz 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I want to cover my breaking of my compromise, but you were the first who broke the compromise in action: --Aminz 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which bad faith? We compromised on that article. I later broke my compromise. What do you mean by "bad faith" ? You reminded me of this issue on another article and I did as we compromised but you were the one who broke the compromise in action.--Aminz 09:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You broke the compromise at 7:51 and I broke it at 8:14. You were the first to break the compromise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJeremygbyrne&diff=50711520&oldid=50403179 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Muhammad_as_a_warrior&diff=next&oldid=50709869 --Aminz 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am losing my trust in you too. I compromised with you on that particular article. Later you objected to my edits on another article. I changed it according to the compromise we already had(there was no need to enter into a revert war again). But you broke the compromise. My later breaking of the compromise was, I admit bad. But I really thought I have compromised with you on that particular article at that time. --Aminz 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not accept your accusation. I just did wrong once and it was when I broke my compromise on the talk page of Jeremy. That's it. --Aminz 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The same for you! I admit I did wrong once and only once. I think you did wrong once but you are not admitting it.(though I admit mine was worst) --Aminz 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell everybody everything you want. I have one master and he is God and I am only responsible to God and not anybody else. Honor is in the hands of God and not you. --Aminz 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, This is far too dramatic. Misplaced Pages is no cause for Kyrie Eleisons.

We can simply agree - as we have - that quotes are not to be altered, and that the standards we are proposing are to applied only to WP original text.Timothy Usher 10:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I really meant what I said. Maybe I am again impulsive. I agree with your suggestion. I am going to sleep now. Goodnight everybody--Aminz 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Discordian Apple

The Discordian Apple here is the Arabic-titled POV forks themselves. Their very existence ensures that there is no adequate answer. You are fighting over the apple, and over previous fights over the apple, without realizing that the problem was put to us by third parties.Timothy Usher 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I don't begrudge you for being upset about it, but you are misconstruing Amin's character. He breaks deals (are you listening Amin?) because he is impulsive and chaotic, not because he is ill-motivated and evil. Criticize it, it's easy, but there's no need to misconstrue it.Timothy Usher 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz is not evil. He's young and not quite sure of what he believes, though he has had a strict Shi'a upbringing. As for the edits re Allah = God, he's absolutely right. Read the Allah article. It's just God, in Arabic. English say God, French say Dieu, Hawaiians say Akua, Arabs say Allah. Christian Arabs say Allah. Please don't revert perfectly reasonable edits and accuse him of bad intentions.

It would be kind, and conducive to polite discourse, if you reverted your edit and apologized to him. Zora 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zora. I actually did wrong once when I broke my compromise. I apologized for that but I and Netscott have further diagreements. Diagreements may always happen (and will happen) naturally. --Aminz 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott,

I was thinking today about our story on the other day. When I put myself in your shoes and tried to analyse them from your perspective, something I didn't do before, I realized that you are very right to be very angry of me. Please accept my apology. I am still young and prone to making mistakes. I will promise to never edit the depiction of Muhammad. I learned a lot from this --Aminz 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

If you assumed good faith, and read both articles from a Neutral perspective, you will find that one contains significantly better text than the other, and also contains an image appropriate to the article. Stop stalking! --Irishpunktom\ 11:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The image at present is of a Pilgrim, thats why its there. I was looking for neutral PD images, what do you thing of This one?--Irishpunktom\ 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's Block

Hey Netscott. Timothy violated the 3rr on the Isa page and that's why he was blocked. As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) he fully reverted to his version for the fourth time in 24 hours. . I mentioned this 3rr violation on the talk page of the Isa article in case you are wondering about it.It's a clear 3rr rule violation. --a.n.o.n.y.m 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter and shouldn't be a problem. Admins are following the page already and Sean Black pointed out that Tim reverted to his version as soon as it was unprotected thus violating 3rr. The block should have been much longer since Tim does this a lot. Look at the history of the page. Edit warring over your own arbitrarily changed and controversial version when there is clearly a conversation going on, and then doing it as soon as the page is unprotected is very wrong. The whole point should be to give him a break from doing that. Maybe agreement can be reached before he starts reverting again. That's all I want to point out and give to this block. No one should be defending him for reverting to a controversial version which is not encyclopedic when it's still going on. --a.n.o.n.y.m 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Resid did not mean anything negative by 'troublemaker'. It was just something used for the lack of a better/more appropriate word like "initiator of this dialogue". I am sure he appreciates your valuable input and is joking about you being a detective. Also please consider that he offered you an olive branch so he's not trying to get into an argument. I'll communicate with him and make sure that he does not say anything offensive. Netpari 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation

Netscott, I cannot overstate my appreciation for your involvement in discussions re my recent block. Thanks.Timothy Usher 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Thanks, Netscott! I've some things to attend to over here, so it won't be right away.

Can you believe what Sean Black just did on his talk page?Timothy Usher 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics2

Netscott, the new Wikiethics proposal has been moved to User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics and the discussion, along with those deleted comments to User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics. -- noosphere 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was already busy with it, you were faster. KimvdLinde 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, then you overwrote it again. He has now fixed it himself. KimvdLinde 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I was fixing that. KimvdLinde 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is on my watch list. KimvdLinde 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

nonsense

Would you please explain, why my edit is "nonsense" on the talk page. I've already had a chat with Azate about disillusionment with multiculturalism on the talk page. Raphael1 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

no Obligation

There is no obligation on me to provide that to you. I did go looking for images that had specifically renounced all rights with respect of copyright connected to islamophobia, and these I believe are the best, if you can find better, please add them. --Irishpunktom\ 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to have concerns over rights, or are you just acting in bad faith? --Irishpunktom\ 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly, I didn't believe you before, and this proves me right. You are in no position to demand personal E-Mails sent to me, and I am unwilling to give them to you in light of our history. --Irishpunktom\ 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with those tags, they are exaclty listed as they are. The problem here is you, again, acting in bad faith agaist an editor you have a personal dislike of. --Irishpunktom\ 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

mischaracterization or not, it is how you presented yourself. And I shall deal with the other user. --Irishpunktom\ 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamikaze

No worries, I've been watching it ever since I disputed CSD on it last week - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use distinct hits. 16000 is uninformative. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from a dizzy mind

Hey Netscott, Thanks for the note. Too much reading, analyzing and writing in the past month. I'm trying to finish a chapter in my thesis and arrange fieldwork, and have made myself the promise not to comment on the JPMC saga but only to listen/read (which I have done intensely) until the chapter was done. Which it nearly is, now there's just a defence left. I'm not too good at being single minded about things - even if I do mostly find the topic feverously interesting - I've just about had enough of chimpanzees, intentionality and pointing gestures for ... at least the rest of the week. :-) Keep up the fight. Varga Mila 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

original research template

You beat me to it. I was just about to create the exact same in-line template "original research?" with question mark and all. Good job. That's going to very useful. RJII 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I am on the IRC channel and I'll try to make some noise and get him blocked right away if he start reverting again. -- Karl Meier 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I'll comment on these issues later today, or tomorrow. I think I'd prefer if the whole thing was deleted though (both the reference and the combat section), as I doubt they help our readers to understand anything about the concept, or the discussion re the this concept. Frankly, as I see it, these fragmented, undigested and boring lists about what anybody and his mother has ever said or done about "Islamophobia" is just crap. They just waste our readers time and cheapen the article.

And btw. thanks for letting me know about the reverts at the Hirsi Ali article. -- Karl Meier 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it should be contrary to logic to add "alleged" to the title of that section. I guess the reason that I don't get it must be that English is not my first language, and that I somehow lack a sufficient understanding of the English word "alleged". I'll remove it right away though. -- Karl Meier 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts Hirsi Ali

Why revert it? It has become clear that her name is Ayaan Hirsi Magan, of course she is known by some as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but i put that in clearly, in bold. --84.30.97.206 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a true reverter :)

Hi Netscott, my only contribution has been on Gulen article so far as you figured out quickly. Well, man! you look like a real reverter. I just saw the message above, I know you are doing the same on Gulen article too. Thanks for the wellcome note. Mokotok 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Light&Truth

Hi

Thank you for the note... Light&Truth 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. Can you help me to make the corrections please. Light&Truth 07:36, 18 May 2006

So, are you a nice person or a bad one here? (You know from my page already that I am nice :) ) I should say that my first impression has changed a litle bit. How come you can support someone who hide some facts from an article. Are you for censorship? User:Azate is not a reliable person (my impression from his edits on the page) and to support his actions will lead you to the same position. Below he says in his message that he accidentally saw that article. It is unbelieveable to me especially after his claim that: 'I'm on home turf here.' There is something wrong going on here, be cautious ;) Light&Truth 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali

I noticed it. But on the other hand I thought that if he continue to move the article around, then he would be in violation of 3rr, and I then I could just change it back right away. -- Karl Meier 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exotic's reply to your message on AHA page editing

Hi Netscott,

Thank you for your message. I have read the Recentism page following your advice. Thanks. Sorry for replying so late. I am new to Wiki and did not know where to find my messages. I hope that the issue is solved now. I scaled down my post and another editor put it at the end of the intro. I agree that it was too long and Zoellick's comment was not relevant for the intro. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Best

Argh you got me

It should be a word though. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Series

At least the Hardy Boy books are numbered. But really, I don't see why the word should be insisted upon even if by some meticulous parsing of the definition it could be made to fit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't so much "acknowledge the logic" of your argument as concede there just might possibly be some way in which it's not completely illogical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gulen

You know that I am correcting Azate's POV. I am providing the links for all statements as necessary. He deleted many crucial information from the article. Mokotok 04:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. I added some comments on the talk page. But come on, where is his real involvement on the talk page? His talks are totally irrelevand and do not explain or answer anything. You should be able to see it yourself. Mokotok 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Allah

Thanks! I, too, saw the problem, but couldn't find the template on the talk page in order to remove it.Timothy Usher 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner

Thought you might be interested to have a look at . --Aminz 08:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Netscott! and thanks for voting! BEST! --Aminz 08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott! Sure --Aminz 08:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Fair enough. Next time I'll read a discussion in a little more detail before being bold :-) Nomist 18:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia Cat

There are equivalent cats for anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. Islamophobia is a similar concept. I don't want to get in an ideological war. I've created a lot of categories and only once have I had one deleted. --Ben Houston 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how aware you are how sensitive this topic is but the creation of an islamophobia cat will almost assuredly start a battle over it. Netscott 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO the people that passionately argue over the complete non-existence of religious or racial disciminations/prejudices are usually people that are not innocent. I have witnessed first hand so many different types of religious and racial discrimination/prejudices. Although I can accept that some less than honest individuals will use these types of labels to deflect legitimate criticisms but this doesn't mean that the core discriminatory concept doesn't exist. --Ben Houston 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, when the term is solidified the cat can be renamed, but until then it is useful to have a placeholder than brings together all the related articles. I couldn't care less if you want to call the concept "anti-Crescentism" or whatever -- the concept still exists and it is broad enough to have a category. Just because the term for the concept is in dispute does not mean all work in Misplaced Pages related to that concept must stop. --Ben Houston 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gülen

I was suprised and glad to see you there, because I came accross the article quite by chance. I want 4 things in particular added to this article:

1) the intelligent design business. there's this article by Mustafa Akyol. at the bottom is a link to Akyol's "Intercultural Dialogue Platform", which actually redirects to Gülen's "Journalists and writers foundation". see also ] and Islamic creationism. I have some nice articles who expose these poeples bluff of posing as moderates while having a reactionary agenda, and copying the subversive tactics of the US fundie creationists. Akyol even testified in the Kansas creationism trial to prove that ID wan't a christian idea. Very entertaining reading from the horse's mouth about their idea of science: (at the bottom,"Main teachings")

2) THe Anti-Shia and Anti-Kurdish prpaganda of Gülen. I have publications to back this up. they have already been removed by his fanboys once.

3) The 1999 video affair, where the secret service played incriminating videos about Gülen's Islamist intentions into the hands of Turkish TV. We could need a transscript of the videos, or at least some good articles about the affair in English from a reputable source.

4) Gülen is engaged in shadowy stuff in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan et Kyrgyzstan, mainly via his schools, and their graduates that then go on to fill important positions in gov, mil, edu and business in these countries. This is mainly to counter Russian interests, and happens in coordination with some US players. Most of this is informed rumor. If you can find good sources in English, that wozuld be great!

5) Gülen is also jockeying for influence in Germany, by posing as a moderate representative of the Turkish, or general Islamic, community via 1001 councils, organizations etc.. I have stuff about this, but it's probably too boring to include, since he's not particularly successful at the moment Azate 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Netscott,

I thought about changing the intro section, because as far as I can see we don't have any strong references that support the definition of Islamophobia that we mention there. I thought that maybe it could be a better idea if we simply mention that it's a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition and that several individuals and organisations has suggested different definitions of this term and concept?

I am concerned that the current version of the intro section is in violation of policies such as NPOV and OR, and I suggest that maybe we could change it to something like this:

"Islamophobia is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition. Several definitions has been brought forward by organizations and individuals such as Runnymede Trust and Stephen Schwartz, and these definitions are discussed later in this article."

What do you think about that? -- Karl Meier 20:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you could find a neutral and reliable sources, then I'd suggest that we replace our current definition and include that definition of the term in the intro and attribute it to that source. However, I haven't been able to find any such source myself, and one of the first things I noticed was a long list of otherwise very useful sources that unfortunately doesn't include the term: As I understand it, it's not out job to find similarities in the definitions that has been brought forward and make up our own "meta-definition" of the word, because as I understand it, that is a clear violation of policy regarding original research. You mention that the definition that we include in the intro is what is common to nearly all the recognized/notable definitions of the term. I have to say, that I find it somehow difficult to agree with that. If you read the points in a definition such as the one from the Runnymede Trust, then you could easily agree to some of them, and still disagree to the claim that you have a "fear or prejudice against Islam or Muslims as a religious group". I believe that it a slightly biased conclusion re definitions such as the one from the Runnymede Trust. -- Karl Meier 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good and useful definition. I'll add it to the intro section in a few monents. -- Karl Meier 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I also thought about that, because I noticed that there has been released a new (August 2005) edition of that dictionary after the 2003 edition that we are refering to. I'll make sure to mention it. -- Karl Meier 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice this edit? -- Karl Meier 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll review it again and make sure to keep that in mind. One thing that I also just noticed is that Irishpunktom is back editing the article, and seriously, his latest edits make doubt if he actually know what he is doing or if frankly he's just trolling... -- Karl Meier 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I or anyone else should just accept something like that? What he is doing is just outrageous. He's even reverting the (very obvious) positive changes to the intro section that where made yesterday. As I see it, it's nothing but pure disruption. -- Karl Meier 09:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to what you say, but Tony Sidaway would in this case be a bad choice. It would properly just make things more complicated, as him and I have a bit of a negative history, regarding some issues not related to this article or any other Islam articles. However, what you say is reasonable, and if we could find another neutral editor that might help us with this, then I would support the idea. I'll try to think of someone that might be interested in this, and I'll make a suggestion within the next few hours. -- Karl Meier 09:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I just noticed that Irishpunktom violated 3rr once again. -- Karl Meier 09:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the protection stuff... I am afraid that Irishpunktom will be all to happy to see the article protected on his version... -- Karl Meier 09:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Paranoiia man!! - Its on your version --Irishpunktom\ 09:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I would much appriciate if you did not allow such extreme personal attacks against me on your talkpage. I (and everybody else) are allowed to remove personal attacks on sight, and I quite offended that you allow such a dirty accusation against me on your talkpage. I'll report this when Irishpunktom return from his 3rr ban, and no I will not remove the report from the 3rr page, and I will not enter any mediation or dispute resolution with someone who insist on making extreme personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Such discussions doesn't matter. Name calling is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and I am disappointed that you still have this personal attack against me in your usespace. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Netscott. I'll file a report regarding this on the personal attack noticeboard in a few moments. -- Karl Meier 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dancing on vulcanoes

I've been on a "vacation" ... MX44

Islamophobia is a form of racism

Why? The anti-Semitism entry doesn't include the parties, who define it as racism, either. But I don't really care as long as you are editing consistently. Raphael1 19:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What other definitions on Islamophobia exist, which do not include racism directed towards Muslims? Raphael1 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't make sense and is plain wrong. Instead Islamophobia is a form of racism against the religious ethnicity of Muslims. Raphael1 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

original research

I'm just guessing for a better headline. ;-) Raphael1 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Help for book review

Dear Netscott, I'm writing a book review on The Bible, The Qur'an and Science and I would like to keep it fair and neutral without hurting anyone's feelings and still get the POV of the book across. Could you please provide me with constructive criticism and hints on improvement? Parihan 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes

I do tend to avoid Neologisms, and am aware of that guideline - However, when a Neologism enters mainstream, an article on it becomes needed. You yourself have tried to eliminate this article, you do not hold a neutral perspective on this, but it has survived two AFds so it cannot be avoided.--Irishpunktom\ 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your habit of wikistalking, unfortunetly, prevents me from seeing any of your reversions or attempts at removing information as "Good faith". Further, your request to refrain from Edit warring would ring more true if you yourself refrained from the practice. Also, WP:NEO is not policy. --Irishpunktom\ 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines, and do not need to be followed to the letter, you are trying to enforce it as though it were policy - its not. --Irishpunktom\ 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you go to Tony when there is a system in place to deal with disputes like this?--Irishpunktom\ 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you, who has collaberated openly with Karl - who makes no secret of his prejudices - and you who has tried to eliminate the article from Misplaced Pages makes me doubt the neutrality of Tony now. Nothing to do with Tony, unfortunately. As such, as there is a process set up for this kind of thing, it should be utilised. --Irishpunktom\ 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Do you want to make a new page just to deal with this process?--Irishpunktom\ 09:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Having an involved party name the Med will lead to accusations of bias. Its better to use the system in place. Also, your proposed page cannot be used, as it will show up as an article in the random article search, how about Talk:Islamophobia/dispute resolution ?--Irishpunktom\ 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Karl is the racist in Question, not you. I should have made that clearer, apologies. --Irishpunktom\ 10:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) The utilization of this word has been struck by myself in accord with WP:NPA. Netscott 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

delete extreme personal attack by Irishpunktom(reverted -Scott) -- Karl Meier 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I want you to know that I'll report you for your continued personal attacks Irishpunktom. I have already warned you about this. -- Karl Meier 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, if you want to discuss why I view you as a racist, do so again on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\ 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I only added it to your talk page because of the comments you left on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\ 10:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care one bit about your views Irishpunktom. You are to follow Wikipedias policies, and stop making personal attacks against me. However it is obvious that you refuse to do that. -- Karl Meier 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

karl, your edits on your own page were attacks against me, all muslims, and immigrants - And it is to that that I am referring. Netscott, Yes, but I added the explanation to the take page to allay your fears.--Irishpunktom\ 10:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom. I could call you a lot of names citing your obvious pov editing in order to attack the reputation of a well known defender of homosexuals rights. However I do not do that, because it would be against NPA, and unlike you I respect that policy. Anyway, you don't know anything about me, and your accusations against me are ridicules. Islam is not a race. -- Karl Meier 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gald you see he is a gay rights campaigner too. --Irishpunktom\ 11:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article mention, he's a British gay rights activists. Now, please explain, why do you hate homosexuals Irishpunktom? -- Karl Meier 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I don't hate Homosexuals. Peter Tatchell, however, appears to hate a lot of Muslims. --Irishpunktom\ 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl we are both using Netscotts page as a Proxy. In future, if you want to ask me a question, can you please use my talk page?--Irishpunktom\ 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think my talk page is pretty neutral to both of you gentlemen.. so by all means use it. Better to be talking than warring. Netscott 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edit where you remove the fact that he is also a human rights activists makes your intentions on that article obvious. -- Karl Meier 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets move the discussion on your pov edits away from Netscotts talkpage. -- Karl Meier 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

filed?

Netscott, have you filed for the dispute resolution yet? --Irishpunktom\ 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to pressure you or anything.. just wasn't sure if you were waiting on me to do it, as I was waiting on you to do it! --Irishpunktom\ 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel under pressure, I'm not going to be editing it till the resolution process is through. --Irishpunktom\ 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the resolution process is the best way forward.--Irishpunktom\ 12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

Thanks for informing me of the list. It doesn't bother me very much though. That's the price you gotta pay for being an admin ;) Aecis 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia, again

Could you protect this article while the dispute resolution process is under way? Netscott 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while the article isn't protected other editors are making edits that are at the heart of this dispute. Netscott 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, done, but in future please use WP:RFPP to get a quicker action. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFM is the best way to proceed, I owuld have thought. --Irishpunktom\ 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)