User talk:BrandonYusufToropov

Hello. Thanks for visiting my talk page.

I really enjoy hearing from people, but if you decide to post here you should know that I reserve the right to delete, without response, comments that I determine -- in my sole, exclusive, and quite probably biased judgment -- to be abusive, irrelevant, or simply annoying. BrandonYusufToropov 13:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Please leave your comments below this line of text, placing new messages on the bottom.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Further proof, as if we needed it, that Klonimus is under the impression he is God

Check out the edit summary [here].

You mean he's not?! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid mubarak

Thank you, dear brother in Islam, and inshallah God will guide me and all of us closer to him. --Striver 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Eid Mubarak

Thank you! It's not been seen here yet, looks like Eid's Tomorrow for us. InshAllah It'll be a great one! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Thanks for your kind words brother , Eid mubarak to you too . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BYT. 4 U 2 -- 81.109.183.177 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

EID MUBARRAK!!! --Khalid! 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy holiday and more

Was Eid yesterday or today? Hope you had/have a nice one. As to the other matter -- I can't keep my temper. It feels to me like a grotesque waste of time and energy to negotiate with the mentally deficient and psychologically impaired. I admit to my defect. Things would go better without my input. Zora 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It would next to useless to write a list, I should think, because the matters under dispute affect the whole of early Islamic history. If a certain set of articles are set aside as "not to be touched without consensus", then that leaves existing or potential biographical articles for hundreds of people out of the reckoning, not to mention all the doctrinal and legal matters, or events, that could be disputed. If the promise were not to edit anything, or create any new articles or templates, without consulting you first, I'd be thrilled. But I don't think that this is what you're being offered. Zora 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations for an example of the sort of article we would be giving him a free hand to write. Zora 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Thanks, and Eid Mubarak to you too. - ulayiti (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and your familia. --1Muslim 17:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By george, I think I've got it

Brandon, I think I've figured it out. Striver and Zereshk enjoy conflict, enjoy writing something outrageous (poking me) and seeing how I will react. See the talk page on Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations. I always respond, due to my dogged insistence on trying to make Wikipedia "good" (by my standards). I have to let go of that. I just will not deal with them for a while, and see what happens. It's up to the rest of you to deal with Shi'a bias and Striver's spelling and grammar. I need to step back. I'll see how it goes if I just work on other articles for a while. Zora 07:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Brandon. I've looked at the history, and it's very complicated, so I can't tell right off exactly what is happening. You can report these things on WP:AN/3RR, listing the specific edits you think are reverts. Once you're done, if you let me know (and I'm on Wikipedia), I'll take a look, and block if it's accurate. I hope that helps. Oh, and Eid Mubarak. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Brandon, I had left by the time you posted, and was away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I see someone blocked anyway. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite's RFA

I thought you'd be interested in this RFA. He is a very sensible editor who has gotten support from both sides. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite Yuber^(talk) 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Sorry I was away and could not reply!

A very warm Eid mubarak to you as well. PassionInfinity 06:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I also thank you for your congratulatory note on my page! I greatly appreciate it Ramallite ^(talk) 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

I figured that the discusion was not about the Ali article in particular, but about me, so i moved it to where it was appropiate. I let Zora have the final word and gave a link to the follow up. What is the problem? --Striver 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If want to make sure nobody misses it, then by all means, place a "Important: Ongoing talk with Striver on his comment page" on the "Misc and recent (not relating to articles)" part of the guild, but the talk, as it is going now is not related to the Ali article. Im i not correct? --Striver 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I really appreciate to get some acknowledgment for my efforts!

As things are, we happen to have different stance on some very emotional issues, and this is causing some stress between us, and will unavoidably continue to do so in the future. I am determined to show that some un-pleasant facts regarding the first period of Islam to be clearly presented, but the Sunni ideology has the stance of forget and forgive, in contrary to the Shia that makes efforts to remember them.

BUT! Aside from that, we are both:

• Belivers in Tawheed
• Belivers in prophethood
• Belivers in the Quran
• Belivers in justice
• Humans

So, no matter what, you will continue to be my brother in Islam and humanity, and i thank you for your proof of good faith, the Barnstar. It will help me to remember to keep differences in perspective.

Peace, brother!

--Striver 18:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

Is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and Slavery Would you care to vote? Thx.--The Brain 10:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem

Glad to help. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too! --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a, Striver

The Shi'a-related articles in most need of NPOV help are Shia Islam, Ali, Umar, Hasan ibn Ali, and at the moment, Sahaba. Only the first has a significant crowd of milling newbies. The rest is the usual head-on conflict with Striver and Zereshk. Striver is being particularly difficult. He is trying to collect "evidence" for his RFC against me, so he is inserting contentious edits and then taunting me ("Let's see if she falls for this" in the edit summary -- or "Go on, revert, I need more evidence".)

I'd like to be able to communicate with you without interested parties peering over my shoulder -- could you email me at lofstrom@lava.net, so I'll have your email address? Zora 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Got your email

Got it, but haven't been able to reply -- spent whole day driving an old friend (roommate of 17 years ago) around O'ahu. Will talk later. Thank you so much for the kindness. Zora 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You sent email, I finally sent email -- but I haven't received a reply. Checking mail several times a day, checking spam trap. Typo in address? Your message on my talk page seemed to indicate that a reply had been sent, but none received. Puzzlement. Zora 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

This is not related to our works on WP, but i wanted to share it [1]

Ma salam. --Striver 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

They are trying to reinstate this really offensive article. Can you please take a look? Yuber^(talk) 16:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing parliamentary maneuver results in the reinstatement of this utterly offensive article. I am trying to restore some measure of balance, though of course it should be deleted entirely. BrandonYusufToropov 19:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, you'll need to get consensus to redirect it or delete it. I realise the subject itself is stupid, but it's an article that's been (wrongly or rightly) kept on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the general consensus is to wait for a considerable period of time before relisting on AfD. This might be 4-6 months. I'm only saying this as a general rule of thumb. In the meantime, have you considered putting in material to refute the argument? Trust me, I know what it's like to have an unsavory article you'd like to get rid of. My own personal Waterloo was Christian views of women, which was terrible when I saw it. At the time of listing on VfD (before transclusions) it survived and I never thought it would be any good. Now I see differently. Articles can in fact change for the better, or prove to be a thorn in the side of the original author who held a particular position! Why don't you try to sort out the article? Just a friendly suggestion. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That example hardly works. We have Holocaust denial. The article Islamfascism is quite a long one, seems to discuss the topic in depth. As a Christian, I've been called worse that an Islamofascist - I would not object to some of the terms being listed for an article here. I'd just update it. Please don't tell me I'm complicit, you know that I'm no Islam-basher (though I strongly disagree with it), as I'm sure you saw when we both fought off Pename on Jihad. One last thing: I'm actually suprised that Judeofascism is a redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's solution is a good one. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd take the Judeofascim one to AfD, and not the Islamofascism one. Why? Because the Islamofascism one is being used by idiots quite often, whereas the Jewish epiteth is almost never used. As it currently stands, the Islamofascism article shows the term to be pretty stupid. If someone looks it up on Google, they'll hit our article and come to the same conclusion: the author is a fool. That can only help destroy that authors credibility. I would have thought you'd be positively happy that such stupidity is being refuted! I must say I'm suprised at your reaction here. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. Florida? Must have missed something. As for me legitimising the term - huh? Don't you think you are getting a little personal? And how on earth do you think that the article (in its current form) makes it a legitimate term? Currently it screams "idiot about". - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummm..

... do you realise that you added your comment on WP:AN/I to a section where I was directly quoting others? Your comment now makes it look like I quoted you from the talk page of Islamofascism. You might want to move it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

I dont think we are going to get rid of it after Mr Bush have said it. I belive there there is a words for that, auxio...something, when you combine two opposites in one word, like "coldwarm". I guess the best is to keep away all nonsense "See also" links like "Muslims hates jews" and non-sense like that. We also can help out with links like "Islamic democracy" and such.

We could make some article that sumarized how the USA foreign realtions have butchered the middle east, Operation Ajax, helping Saddam to power in the same year as the Islamic revolution, pumping him with weapons against Iran, being allied to Saudi Arabia, even tough most of the 19 alledged hijackers where from there, how they tried to blame the anthrax on Iraq, even if it came from their own labs, the propaganda that made Americans belive it did come from Iraq, how ... never mind.

It just occured to me that it would be dissmised as a conspiracy theory...

--Striver 10:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Message

Query for you at Talk:Judeofascism (term). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Harmony

Brandon, it seems to me that recently the Muslim and Jewish editors (or those perceived to be) have been getting along well, better than I remember it when I first started editing. The resurrection of Judeofascism is going to affect that. You know that this isn't right, and that you won't find any decent sources for it. I understand that you're trying to draw a parallel, but it isn't a fair one. There are too many journalists who have used the term Islamofascism, and now President Bush. The only people you'll find using Judeofascism are likely to be extremist websites that will never be acceptable sources for WP, so all that's going to happen is a hornet's nest of trouble will be stirred up to no avail. Please reconsider what you're doing. There's nothing to stop you putting Islamofascism up again for VfD, or trying to persuade other editors to push for a redirect, but you weaken your own case by engaging in a WP:POINT, and it's not exactly encyclopedic, yet I know that's what you normally strive to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood AfD. There is no such thing as a vote to redirect. If you vote that, you're voting to keep. AfD controls whether a title exists. It doesn't control content. If you want it not to exist as an article, you have to vote to delete the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it as is, though, pending the discussion there. BrandonYusufToropov 15:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but be careful, because this is what happened before. You and Mel saw the number of redirect comments and misunderstood them. AfD decides whether to keep a title. After that, the normal editing process resumes, because otherwise you'd have AfD controlling content, and nothing is allowed to control content, except our editorial policies. If the title is kept and the editors at that time want to redirect it, it's a redirect. If two weeks later, another bunch of editors wants an article, it becomes an article. So long as people edit within the policies, they can do whatever they want at any time on any page, and prior consensus counts for nothing. The only way to get rid of this is to vote to delete it at AfD. The only way to turn it into a redirect is to persuade the editors on the page, not at AfD, to redirect it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam!

Bro, i feel for you on this one. We both know that "islamofacist" is nonsense, its as stupid as saying "icehot water". But the problem is that Bush and the other warmongering bigot are using it as war time propaganda to attract other bigots... I belive the best way isnt to try to pretend the word dosnt exist, rather, to explain why the word is nonsense... Dont you agree?

Ma salam, your brother in Islam --Striver 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Umm, I'm slightly torn about this issue. I think "Islamofascism" is more notable than Ali Sina, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, Flash (song), and Bloomsdale, Missouri. People know the term (Bush used it in a speech in Korea) and therefore I can't say when we include so many things that Islamofascism in no way deserves its own page. Now, I think in many ways it is a POV fork and is just another way to push an agenda... but, I'm not sure that should dictate how I vote. I do think it needs to be NPOV. I searched the scholarly journals and didn't find it. When I searched Expanded Academic ASAP+ the term shows up in Commentary and the National Review... so, we also know what type of person uses the term. So, we need to NPOV it... but, I'm not sure it doesn't deserve an article. Let's just make sure it doesn't get used for unencyclopedic purposes. gren グレン 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking about my vote and I almost just voted for move to Islam and fascism instead of using a neologism... I'd imagine you don't like that any more but, I figured I'd ask for your thoughts. gren グレン 02:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed

Bigotry, Hate speech, and Systemic bias are all things that aren't too good. However, being that Islamofascism is a word that is widely used today, my position on this article is that it should be kept and we should discuss exactly who uses the term, why they use the term and when the term is used.

I appreciate that you know I don't support the use of such a term. However, imagine you are an ordinary Australian who knows nothing about Islam and all of a sudden you are confronted with such a term in The Daily Telegraph. You think to yourself, "I wonder what this is all about?". The average Australian would normally go to Google and do a search on it.

What do you want them to find? A conservative blogger who pushes their illegitimate POV in a convincing way (and doesn't point out the counter argument for why it isn't a valid term), or the piece on Wikipedia that details, in a neutral fashion, all sides of the argument?

Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your posts

Brandon, your posts to Ta bu are becoming disruptive. All he did was unprotect a page that arguably shouldn't been protected in the first place. That's a routine admin action, and it doesn't imply agreement or disagreement over the issue. He's a good admin and editor, and shouldn't be harassed any further about the matter. I'm sorry to write to you like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, it's cool. Brandon, I only ask that you be careful to not make a personal attack about me. I know the article is stressful for you (I had my own waterloo with Gay Nigger Association of America). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers

You know, I know your reasoning behind wanting to redirect the page. Really I do. I just disagre with that reasoning, because I feel that it's a significant enough article to merit it's own article.

Anyway, to respond:

• I don't have any problem with people being able to track down a good, solid, neutral discussion of this term.
  • I know this!
• I fail to see why that means it merits an article of its own.
  • I have answered this already, but I feel that it is too long to include in an umbrella article, and it will unbalance the page.
• As Chip Berlet has pointed out, there are hundreds of instances in other encyclopedias where subreferences point people to sections within articles.
  • Indeed. However, we are unique in many ways. We have umbrella articles which briefly summarise the main point of a topic, and they use {{main}} to point to a large article. It works quite well (I've used it on MDAC and Windows 2000, both FAs)
• One good reason to point people to sections within larger articles is the stark factual inaccuracy of the heading the article would have to employ. There is no Islamist anywhere who promotes the actual political doctrine of fascism.
  • Indeed, I don't disagree with you. However we are detailing a neologism and how it is used. A title does not make us take a position. If that was the case, then I would leave the project because of the article Childlove movement.
• That means "fascist" in this case is serving the function of an insult quite consciously chosen for its ability to polarize and distract domestic political constituences.
  • I agree that this is the main reason for the term. This is the same with Christian fascism. This doesn't mean we can't document it.
• Which brings me to another good reason to point people to sections within larger articles -- namely a certain moral responsibility among admins with functioning brains to prevent WP from becoming the #$%^&*() Newspeak dictionary, which is clearly the intent here.
  • You are wrong. I am not here to censor anyone's content. I have no moral authority or responsibility to take a position on an article based on its content. If that were the case, I would have immediately killed off the following pages:
    • Holocaust denial
    • Gnosticism and the New Testament
    • Childlove movement
    • Historical persecution by Christians

Do you see the slippery slope I would be going down?

• Where is the stand-alone article for Blow job?
  • If you can find enough information on this topic to warrant its own article, be my guest! Currently as it stands it's a slang term for oral sex and it's more than appropriate to incorporate it into this article. However, I'd encourage anyone who did proper research to a) redirect it to fellatio, and b) add their sourced material to it.
• ...Zionazi
  • Same deal. If you can find enough information, go ahead and expand the article. Before it was redirected, the article stated:
    • Zionazi: A word invented by those who hate Jews and wish to express their ultimate hatred of them by insinuating a connection with those who perpetrated genocidal mass murder upon the Jews. Most often used by those who are themselves admirers of Hitler.

As you know, that is original research. If voted for on AfD it would most likely be deleted. However, while we have no sources then it has been redirected. I encourage you to kill off the redirect and document the term correctly. Again, it's a particularly stupid term but if you can tell us who says it, why they say it, when they have said it, and where they have said it then this would be a valuable addition to our site. Of course, it would also be highly controversial. However, this is pretty much par for the course on Wikipedia.

• Fifth Column.
  • You've made a mistake here. See Fifth column.
• Do you seriously maintain that these terms are not notable, or that they are incapable of being adequately discussed within the articles to which they are redirected?
  • Nope.
• So what's the difference between those terms and Islamofascism? I'll tell you what the difference is. The necons want this term front and center. So they go knocking on doors until they find someone who actually thinks he's acting responsibly by bending over for them.
  • It's a zionist conspiracy I tell you! They've gotten to me. Quick, bring out the deprogrammers!
• Bad call, Ta bu. Seriously bad call. And the fact that someone like you made it is considerably more disturbing than the fact that they went knocking on the doors in the first place.
  • Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Salaam

Shukran Jazzerah with regards to the voting on the Islamofascism. Marzyeh 05:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

I've unprotected that page. Do you think an intervention of the sort from this page might be good? Read Archive 1, somewhere in the middle to see how it might be helpful. Let me know what you think :-) --HappyCamper 13:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I might come back and check the page again. How do you feel the disucussion on that page is proceeding? --HappyCamper 13:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, take your fanatical fundamentalism somewhere else "Yusuf". --Chaosfeary 13:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Chaosfeary is most definitely Enviroknot. I will try to get some people to look at his account soon.Yuber^(talk) 16:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hate speech

Hate speech is a terrible thing, but it's not Wikipedia's role to suppress it. Rather, if it is encyclopedic, it is Wikipedia's role to examine it dispassionately. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see anything wrong with the term zionazi on WP. I realise that I'm slightly on the inclusionist side of things, but what the hey. Borisblue 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism vs. Zionazism

You ask a good question which I don't really have a good answer to. But basically, I'm not going to change my vote for Islamofascism, and if Zionazism is ever written and subsequently put up for AfD then I'll consider that when it happens. I can't really change my decision on an actual article based on what I would do with a hypothetical article. If Zionazism was sourced, well-written and as NPOV as it could be, I'd probably vote to keep it as well. --Last Malthusian 14:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term)

What exactly are you trying to do? - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a complicated discussion, and it's common to make some refactoring to better sort out the arguments. My edit summaries did make that pretty clear, and I'm a bit confused as to why you want the talk page kept blank? - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

When I screw up, which is pretty regularly, I own up to it

[[2]]

I also use one username, and only one username, to make my points, and I stand behind my edit history. BrandonYusufToropov 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That edit only appeared after I brought your/Yuber's recent actions to the attention of administrators, and from your very insulting insults/remarks/personal attacks it's extremely unlikely you mean it...

I would also like to add that I got blocked for a while simply for making one personal attack in reply to one of your false allegations - You have escaped any kind of punishment... --Chaosfeary 16:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally -- actual conversational content. The diff in on the incidents board made it look (to the hasty viewer) like you had posted this content, as did the fact that the admin in question immediately blocked out his address. I read it too quickly, and I drew a wrong conclusion. I'm sorry. You can think I'm not sorry if you want, but that's your business.

May I ask you precisely what you were accusing me of with [this edit] to my talk page? BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I recently had this posted on my talk page, which I thought you might want to be aware of. --HappyCamper 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

Care to vote?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American terrorism --Striver 13:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary checkuser

Well, Jayjg wasn't just talking about IP addresses, he said that based on the difference in IPs it seemed unlikely that Chaosfeary could be the same person as Enviroknot. I presume this means that the IPs are in different countries, or something. Do you have a link to where Jay said the edit summaries were "suggestive"? Babajobu 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do. [[3]]. My post to User:HappyCamper is manifestly relevant to the discussion, and I plan to replace it. I'd like your opinion on whether the user who removed it is entitled to do so. BrandonYusufToropov 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal messages to other users go on their talk page, even you KNOW that, you just choose to ignore it... --Chaosfeary 13:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...I wasn't happy to see that he'd moved it. I certainly wouldn't have, and I think he's incorrect to say that your comments there amounted to a personal attack. The thing is article talk pages probably aren't the right place to discuss evidence that someone is a sockpuppet, but I'm not even sure about that. You should ask an admin. Babajobu 13:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)