User talk:IronDuke

Welcome!

Hello, IronDuke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Alan Au 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hiya - You can try to reset your password at the login page. In the meantime, I'll try and have an admin reset it for you. When using hotmail addresses, remember to check your spam folder. --Alan Au 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi ID, you can use the link on my user page, or in the toolbox on the left of it, where it says "e-mail this user." Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Arab

Why did you just remove the well-sourced anti-Arab incidents section? Please stop this aggressive POV editing. Yuber^(talk) 16:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

On Cockles

IronDuke, your intervention is a timely one! For some reason I was under the impression that "getting one's cockles up" was synonymous with "getting one's dander up", i.e. getting pissy and frustrated and angry. However, whereas "getting one's dander up" makes a bit of sense, I couldn't figure out how getting one's cockles up would make sense as a euphemism for getting angry. I was considering investigating when your note came. Well, this is not my first such error. I long used the expression "a bat's chance in hell", incorrectly conflating "a snowball's chance in hell" with "like a bat out of hell". To this day I still sometimes say the incorrect version. So this is an ongoing problem for me. However, I don't think I ever flaunted my ignorance so egregiously as on the Islamofascism AfD page where I believe I incorrectly used "cockles" a good five times in a single sentence. Well, live and learn. Thanks for educating me and sparing me further such episodes. As for my RfA, thanks for your kind words, even though I got pwned I enjoyed being the center of attention, primarily negative attention though it was. Mr. Kenneth Patrick Bogan was either a fugitive sex offendor from Compton, California who decided to reveal his identity on Wikipedia, or, more likely, someone pulling a bizarre and very convoluted prank. I had great fun watching it unfold, though. Regards! Babajobu 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Hi, IronDuke. My willingness to change my vote is not due to the desire to get Brandon to focus his attention elsewhere. "Islamofascism" is notable, and I believe now, as I believed before, that it is an entirely appropriate topic for Wikipedia. In the AfDs on Islamofascism people generally argued for or against its deletion. People who argued for a redirect invariably said something along the lines of "offensive! redirect!", or "delete this trash and redirect". I never had any truck with these argument/opinions. The term is notable, end of story. It is/was not acceptable, in my mind, to replace discussion of the term with a more general, PC discussion at neofascism and religion. However, this time something different has happened. Rather than simply trying to "disappear" the topic of Islamofascism, the redirecters have actually incorporated the entire discussion of Islamofascism into the neofascism and religion article as a subheading of the Islam section. That resolution works well enough for me. Many notable topics in Wikipedia are covered as sub-headings in more general articles. Before it seemed that the editors working on neofascism and religion would have nothing to do with the topic of the term Islamofascism, so a standalone article was necessary. Now Islamofascism is discussed in the same place as the more general discussion of fascist elements in Islamic movements, which I think works well. Hope this clarifies a bit! I don't want to be Brutus! ;-)

"Someone who wants to know what the word means should only have to type it into the serach box and hit enter for the word and its defintion to come up instantly. They should not have to root around other articles for it." Yes, this is true. This is really a problem with the mediawiki software, in that while one can create a link to a subheading of an article, redirects cannot go to subheadings. What needs to happen is that someone types in Islamofascism, and they are redirected to the Islamofascism subheading of neofascism and religion. The lack of this functionality is a problem all over Wikipedia, with numerous notable topics being included within other articles, but forcing readers to go on an easter egg hunt when they are directed to the main article. Hopefully the next upgrade of the software will put an end to this. But I do think this (hopefully temporary) disadvantage is outweighed by the advantage of having the full discussion of Islamofascism offered along with the general discussion of fascism in Islamist movements. As to why other editors have so zealously opposed having a standalone article for the term? Well, I think it's clear that the existence of the standalone article bothers them. I wasn't willing to bend to accommodate their pieties, but I'm not going to let those pieties annoy me into opposing what I think is a pretty reasonable handling of the topic, either. Have to log off for now, will be back on later. Cheers, Babajobu 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for alerting me to the discussion, I've added my thoughts to the talk page in the 'Let's merge...' section. --Malthusian (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reed College page

IronDuke, if you don't quit the meta-discussion harrassment and either make a positive contribution to the content of the page or go away, I will seek to have you banned as a vandal. Your attacks on me haven't really gone anywhere, so I suggest you consider one of these two routes. -- Gnetwerker 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confused as to the definition of a wikivandal: this may help: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." [[1]] If you are convinced that I am, in fact, a vandal, you are obliged to report me to the proper entities. I think you would get little traction on this, however; threats to have users making legitimate edits (even if NPOV or bad faith -- which mine aren't) "banned" are frowned on here. As to making a "positive contribution," I quote you from the talk page (snideness excised for clarity): "IronDuke has chosen... to... re-write [the article] ... This is fine, and may be an improvement (ultimately)." IronDuke 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to study the sections Disruption and Users who exhaust the Community's Patience in the Blocking Policy -- Gnetwerker 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... you haven't exactly responded to any of my points above. That aside, I've actually been meaning to suggest to you that you accuse me of disruption rather than vandalism. It isn't true, of course, but at least you could say, in good faith, "In my, Gnetwerker's, opinion, IronDuke is being disruptive." That statement would not be as demonstrably false as your claims of vandalism, as it falls more into the realm of subjectivity. But let me say this, by way of an olive branch. It is my intention to keep editing the Reed page. I am going to profess myself amazed if you do not continue editing it as well (unless someone, somewhere, decides that officers of a corporation ought not to edit article about it). We can continue this method and manner of discussion, but I think you and I can agree that in the end, it will bear little fruit. So: let's, if we can, resolve to put any and all unpleasantness behind us, and work together on this article. I expect we will have disagreements, but I also expect we're both capable of remaining civil about them, and working together constructively to resolve them without personal attacks. Does all this seem logical/rational/good to you? IronDuke 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1) You can stop posting to both of our Talk pages -- trust me, I read yours; 2) If I don't respond to some of your points, it is because I don't deem them worthy of response; 3) You have my word that I will continue to edit the Reed page (though I believe it not to require a great deal more editing, once the current war is resolved). -- Gnetwerker 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm taking that as a "no" on my peace offering. I'm sorry you feel that way (if I am indeed reading you correctly). Perhaps when a little time has passed you'll change your mind. I'm glad you feel the Reed page is mostly there. I was a bit worried you were going to try to revert my NPOV edits. (And as for my talk pages, I post there as well here not so much for you as for other people, so they can more easily follow our discussion (though one would have to be a bit of a masochist to do that, I think), and also so there's a record of what I'm saying on your page as well as mine). IronDuke 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Louis Braille translation

What did you change? JTBurman 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see now. That wasn't the translation. We need to fold the translation into the main page. You're welcome to help with that, if you wish. JTBurman 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The translation is on the talk page, just above where you put your comment that I first responded to. (We are currently discussing, in the translation wikigroup, how to make this process easier; you're not the first to miss it.) JTBurman 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hi

Hey Gnetwerker and IronDuke,

I got a talk page that you were going to an RfA.

I strongly suggest that you both do not do this and both ask that it not go through.

Instead, I suggest that you both unilaterally agree not to work on the Reed page. You both have a lot to contribute on wikipedia, and an RfA on this one issue would be a waste of time. Allow the article to stand at [2], the latest version, let the many other editors continue to improve it, and move on to work on some other part of wikipedia where you will not encounter each other.

A simple statement on the RfA page somewhere to the effect that "I won't edit if he won't edit" would resolve it.

(If you do go through with an RfA, I can predict the result: "Gnetwerker and IronDuke have ignored policies A, B and C. User 1 did it worse than User 2. Gnetwerker and IronDuke are enjoined from editing the Reed page for a period X." I've got five bucks on it.)

Good luck, Sdedeo (tips) 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

A final decision has been made in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Goodness knows, Wikipedia certainly needs another teenaged voice on Islamofascism and Abortion. -- Gnetwerker 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was going to make a report myself... drop me a link once you made yours. thanks. Netscott 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No need for the link, I see he/she's been blocked. Thanks again! Netscott 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Being unhappy with my edits does not constiture evidence of sock-puppetry (or adminship either), ducky. -- Gomi-no-sensei 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User page

If you don't want a user page, might I suggest that you redirect it to your talk page, as many prominent Wikipedians have done? --Philosophus ^T 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey there IronDuke, it's is good to here from you [3]. I'm confused, though. As seen in the page's history, I have never edited Gomi-no-sensei's talk page. I would appreciate clarification, as, to put it frankly, I do not know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you will probably not want to respond to this message after today. Cheerio! --MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! Caught me! Yes, I see that you were restoring old messages that were previously removed by someone else. Without investigating, it looked like someone putting up three messages at once, a common trolling technique. As far as I am concerned, you may put these back up as you see fit. Again, thank you for talking to me and I'm sorry for making what appears to be a tense situation worse. Have a good day! --MrFish^{Go Fish} 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on my Talk page

You have made the following comments on my Talk page:

You seem not to grasp that you cannot simply delete talk (even on your own page) that you do not like, especially when it concerns potential violations of WP policy.

This is what you deleted:

Ah, you respond at last. Good of you to engage me. As you perhaps know, you may not remove this tag for seven days. IronDuke 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for properly formatting the notice. I'll confess, I found the instructions confusing. IronDuke 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk was deleted by User:MrFish, who has said that he did this because he thought "someone putting up three messages at once" is "a common trolling technique."

Who are you? IronDuke 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:I ask again: who are you and what are you doing at my userpage? IronDuke 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

::No, there'll be plenty of time to remove my comments after we sort out what you were doing at my user page. Explain, please. IronDuke 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

However, as is made clear here: [[4]], it is permissible to "delete comments after responding to them." Here is my response: it is not vandalism to edit my own user page. My actions were within Wikipedia guidelines. Now that I have replied, I have deleted your comments from my page. They are archived here (on your page) for posterity. With regard to your initial comments, it is none of your business who I am, and I was making your User page non-blank, as is indicated permissible here: "User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page ... to avoid red links pointing to them". Thank you. -- Gomi-no-sensei 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei

I have closed that discussion. I strongly recommend that you let the issue go - forget about it. Don't edit Gomi-no-sensei's talk page. Move on. If there is a problem with Gomi-no-sensei then someone else will deal with it - not you. Work on the encyclopedia - that's what we are all here for.--Commander Keane 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Syrthiss 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I came here to let you know that if you want your user page deleted again, let me know and I'll do it. Ral315 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying it's your fault. If it's Gomi's fault, then you should just avoid contact with him/her, and I'll watch to make sure that Gomi doesn't provoke you any more. Ral315 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

I'll take a look, ID. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing color.

You can change your signature by changing your "nickname" in your preferences. To do this, select "raw signature", and, since I assume you want your signature to be red, use IronDuke (view the source of this page) (or figure how to do this correctly in a CSS based way). I hope this can help to defuse the situation here. Doing this and having your user page redirect to your talk page is advisable, since it is much more helpful than a link to a nonexistent page. Such nonexistent user pages are a considerable annoyance to many editors. --Philosophus ^T 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In re sock, for those who are so bored they are actually reading my whole talk page

I'm just leaving a note for all concerned: contrary to what folks may be led to believe from some of the comments on my talk page, I was in fact being harassed by a sock. [[5]] The details surrounding the ownership of the sock will be, I think, murky to most people following this in a casual manner, and that's a-okay with me. I'm willing to let the matter drop, and I'm hoping the puppeteer (whom I'm very, very sure is reading this) will call it a day, secure and happy in the knowledge that yes, he caused me aggravation. I hope that's enough. Let me also say, and without pointing any fingers, that folks who immediately assumed I was the harasser rather than the harassee were actually doing the sock's work for him, forcing me onto the defensive and adding to my stress. Luckily, truth, justice, etc., won out (at least partly) and no permanent harm done. But, while I totally AGF on the part of all participating (real) editors and admins, I just wish people had been a little less quick on the trigger, and AGF for me as well.

And, while, I have your attention, let me just address one thing to the Master Puppeteer: I have to believe, based on your behavior, that our whole interaction must have been incredibly stressful for you. Let me take this opportunity to apologize if I contributed in any way to this -- it was never my intention to make you feel bad. However, let me also offer this plea to you: I know it's sometimes hard to do online, but try to imagine there's a real-life human being somewhere on the other end of what you're doing.

Thanks for reading. IronDuke 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My error mate, sorry.--Commander Keane 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rescue of the Danish Jews

Hey -- I was interested to see your contribution to Danish Jews. Very intriguing. If you're new to Wikipedia, please let me be the first to welcome you, and to ask you if you can provide a source for your facts. I'm not doubting it or disputing it, but it's just generally the policy around here. Click on my signature if you want to talk to me, or just leave a reply here. Cheers. IronDuke 06:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the german Wikipedia. Although, my itention wasn't to throw a better light on my people. ;-) I'm half jewish myself. My account there is Jockl1979. The source is the german wikipedia. The article is written by a Dane, which I asked about the source. Meanwhile I found a page in english though, that implies knowledge of Werner Best and shows up there reasons. It's the website of the Danish-Jewish Museum in Copenhagen: http://www.jewmus.dk/mitzvah_1.asp

Collaboration of Nazi-germany and Denmark means mostly the Danes fighting voluntary in the Waffen-SS :and Wehrmacht. Motiviation was, like for the most, the combat against communist Russia.

If it turns out, that there is no proof for the knowledge of Werner Best and the Wehrmacht, I will not hesitate to delete the text. The last thing I want to do is to create more legends about WW II. :-)

I apologize, if my english sounds like that Denglisch. :-)

Greetings from germany Jörg1979 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great to meet you, Jörg. I've gone ahead and added that cite you provided and tidied the section a bit. Thanks for adding it. Oh, and I expect your English is just a wee bit better than my German, nicht wahr? [Insert "I am a jelly doughnut" joke here.] Choos, IronDuke 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I become a hamburger! Nice to meet you too. Or as the former president of Germany Heinrich Lübke to the Queen once said: "Equal goes it loos!", inspired by the german expression: "Gleich geht's los!" meaning, "Here we go!". Tschüss! :-) Jörg1979 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Har Homa Otto-William, Duke of Burgundy Jamal Sampson The Whole Experience Jafar Panahi The Birth of Venus (Bouguereau) Emil Fackenheim Cupidon (1875) Kibbutz Yavneh William-Henry Gauvin Otto-Henry, Duke of Burgundy Koteka Niki Karimi The Nut Gatherers Stalwart The Knitting Girl Shargh Notre Dame College, Dhaka Nikahang Kowsar

Cleanup Wendy Campbell Robert Malachy Burke Status of women in Pakistan Merge Political antisemitism The Vampire Chronicles Kid Sampson Add Sources Road map for peace Khan Yunis Henry Clay Dean Wikify MacGillick, McGillick, Gillick (Irish Surnames) Pool checkers Gotham Awards Expand William of Norwich Pluralism Seligman

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bourbon

Many thanks for your help on this. I only started because I had a disambig on something I'd written with the legend "you can help." So I tried, cleared most of the disambiguation on this link. Maybe you know how to finish it off, I certainly don't. --Richhoncho 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. I'm sorry, though, I'm not quite sure what it is that you feel needs to be finished off, but I'm happy to help if I can. IronDuke 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All those related links that shouldn't be there, about 150 when I started, left the ones I wasn't too sure about. --Richhoncho 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

that is OK

no offence. think of me as a lighting rod. Zeq 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

<ref> tags

The article is using everywhere the <ref> tag system, which is way less intrusive, and I would suggest that you use them also for consistency of the article. If you need some explanation, please let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The <ref> tags obscured stuff. It was already there. My fault not to use <nowiki> tags-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One way to insert an external link is with single square brackets as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke]'s, resulting in [6]. Double square brackets as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke]]'s will result in this [[7]], in which the second pair is still visible. The article uses in general the <ref> tag system, in which you can add a link as <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke Iron Dukes user page]: tesing it all</ref>, which than shows up as . Anyway, the last one gives smaller numbers, is less intrusive, and you can resue the first occurance of the tag by supplying a name to the first tag <ref name=Iron> Second example</ref>: and the next time as <ref name=Iron/> with an extra slash as this . You can click on the footnote, and it brings you directly to the link, which explains more than a naked link in the text itself.

The later has under the header refernces a special tag <references/> which will give this:

Hope this clarifies -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My name is rachel corrie

You didn't need to recreate this page with a new title. You can simply move pages to new titles using the 'move' tab at the top of the edit window.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't quite work. And now I find there's already an article with that name but it didn't show up before. Weird. IronDuke 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried

I folowed your advice for few days (spelling and all) and at the end the violators of all possible policies are the one who are wiining by getting the article protected or revrted. Zeq 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming

Saw your comment on internal spamming, and I would agree with you. If you make the edit, I will support you and monitor the page with you. Please reply here. Morton devonshire 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for stopping by and for your support. I'd like to get a lot of input from all sides before I do anything drastic like make a guideline/policy edit. But I'm already pleased to have yours... IronDuke 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Using blogs as sources violates WP:V and WP:RS

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information.

From WP:V:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

From WP:RS:

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Your claims that the blog posting on Mike Hawash is exempt does not pass scrutiny. Please stop adding it. If it is WP:V, then find another citation, perhaps one from www.nypost.com, rather than a blog. In any case, it is an editorial, not a fact article, and does not deserve to be quoted as fact. -- 88.149.150.58 07:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)