User talk:Irishpunktom: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:12, 22 May 2006

Something to talk about?

Old Stuff

Copyright

I've removed two copyrighted images from your userpage. Copyrighted images are used in articles under a 'fair-use' claim, unfortunately, under wp policy, fairuse claims cannot be extended to userspace. See WP:FUC for details. --Doc ^ask? 10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Francis Charteris

Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - interesting chap! Given the other Francis Charterises (the Earls of Wemyss) I have put him back as the Colonel... - ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.G. Tatchell

I see you have added the {{POV}} tag again. Last time you added this, you did not explain why. I expect to see a rationale for adding the tag on the article talk page without delay, say by mid-day today, or I will remove the tag. David | Talk 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

It might be better for someone else to take a look at it now that I've asked David to remove the protection. I'll wait for a bit to see what the response is. It probably should be protected as I see what looks like 3RR violations, and it would be better to protect than to start blocking, but the question now is whose version to protect on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Islamophobia Images

Irishpunktom, what are the origins and who is the copyright holder who has irrevocably released all rights to the two new images you've added to the Islamophobia article? Netscott 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see well if you're not inclined to provide such information then I'll be sure to tag them for deletion due to rights concerns, etc. Netscott 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much like how you expressed good faith concerns over the MANIFESTO article before, I too have my own concerning these images. Are you surprised? Netscott 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'll be sure to take the necessary steps to ensure that these new images do not remain on Wikipedia under their current licensing tags. Netscott 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dislike is a serious mischaracterization of my feelings on this matter. Regardless, it appears that a fellow editor concurs with my tagging. Netscott 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions listed on Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission#When permission is confirmed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamikaze

Someone beat me by a few seconds - I was going to object to prod as well. Here's what my edit summary would have been: "object to prod. term is, article is not. Should have read talk page before prodding." Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way offended, though I tend to err on the side of over-notification. No worries. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Colonel Francis Charteris, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Image:Charteris.jpeg

I noticed that this image, which is on the Main Page (congrats) has a copyright symbol showing, but there is no explanation about this. Do you know where the "© NPGD1263.jpg" on the image comes from or its significance? You migh want to follow-up on this. Sorry, I do not have a W account; I am just trying to help. -- 71.6.14.2 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I noticed that too. Presumably it is an image from the National Portrait Gallery. Quite how they maintain copyright on a scan of an 18th century drawing I don't know. But I see someone has cropped the image to remove the tag, following some discussion in Image talk:Charteris.jpeg. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7/7 Truth Movement

Interested? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_of_the_7/7_Truth_Movement - If so please ask those on here whom else you think would be interested. Thank you and keep up the great work.

Mail

Bro, you wanted to mail me something before, but i couldnt fix my mail. Im curious about what you wanted to say... --Striver 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

Template:Islam

Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments brother, I really appreciate them. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Islamophobia section

Irishpunktom, would you respond to this section of talk on Islamophobia? Thanks. Netscott 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Irishpunktom, in your editing of this article (and on Wikipedia in general) please be aware of the following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Thanks. Netscott 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in your editing on this article is that it frequently falls afoul of the above guidelines. The Avoid neologisms guidelines are in place toward NPOV ends. Netscott 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but my good faith reasoning for the AfD was due to the simple fact that the Wikipedia is becoming the defacto primary source for the defining the term which is very counter to WP:NOR. This truth is further evidenced by this link. The way that the article stands now after your latest edit on it doesn't maintain Wikipedia's neutrality from it because of the article's actual use of the term which Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is particularly clear about not doing. Netscott 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're edit warring with Karl Meier now. You both should stop immediately while bearing in mind User:Tony Sidaway's warning to both of you. Netscott 08:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has inclined you to inform me that WP:NEO is not policy (as though I didn't know it)? Netscott 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not enforcing it but it is perfectly logical for editors like myself (particularly when dealing with a neologism like "islamophobia") to be citing it in my efforts to maintain neutrality on its use and the article about it. Netscott 09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about asking User:Tony Sidaway to help us come to some sort of agreement on this issue? I'm becoming really inclined to ask for his assistance. Netscott 09:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because User:Tony Sidaway is already somewhat informed on these issues and has shown no bias in his warnings to you and Karl. Netscott 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put in for page protection while we engage the dispute resolution process. Netscott 09:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Something like Islamophobia/Dispute resolution version? Netscott 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny that both you and User:Karl Meier don't want User:Tony Sidaway involved. That almost makes me think that he'd be the perfect person. I actually have had no direct involvement with Tony Sidaway myself. Netscott 09:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know the the insinuating you're doing that I might be racist/islamophobic really reaks of mean-spiritedness. You must absolutely be aware of the numerous ~~positive~~ beneficial (towards NPOV ends) edits that I've made in terms of Islam related subjects. Don't you ask yourself why a person might do that? Netscott 09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're meaning a page for the acutal resolution process. Yes, that sounds good... I'm still wondering about my questions just above here. Netscott 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I revert User:Karl Meier's removal of this information myself if my motives weren't based upon good faith? Netscott 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget about the whole User:Germen affair that I cracked... even User:Anonymous editor will back me up on that. Netscott 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your calling User:Karl Meier racist based upon the sole evidence of one link is not fair and additionally is completely out of accord with WP:NPA. I 100% agree with you about that particular link but do you honestly think it is fair to automatically refer to someone by the very derogatory and incriminatory term "racist" based solely upon that?... Regardless even if you were right in your accusations (which again I think is highly, highly doubtful) Wikipedia specifically prohibits editors from using such terminology when discussing other editors. Netscott 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here I believe was the first mention of racism, no? Netscott 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

No, I have not yet filed... I am about to though... what with the 3RR report, your talk page and Karl's talk page.. I've been just a tad busy. Getting to it now. Netscott 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm reading up on the processes... I should have a request filed shortly. Netscott 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan as well.. but we're not the only ones editing here... hehe. Netscott 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need to agree on what the dispute actually consists of. My contention is that actual utilization of the term islamophobia on Wikipedia needs to be avoided including on the very article about it. Please explain your view here. Netscott 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Well, I disagree. I believe while in general that contention is a good one when dealing with neologisms, as Islamophobia has entered the mainstream, to such a degree that various governments have set up methods of combatting it, it shuld be utilised. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good I just wanted to be clear on that... this in indeed a very big difference on both our parts and without dispute resolution I'm not quite sure how we could come to a compromise about it as to me this is fundamental difference of view. Netscott 11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four options presented here is there one that seems to make more sense to you than the others? I'm thinking mediation. Netscott 13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN

Yes, the yellow card has been thrown and the ref is reviewing the footage. Any way that you can be pushed into dispute resolution any faster? In the interim, comments like this should be avoided. I know that you're firm in your belief, but it is possible to be right and be blocked at the same time. - brenneman^{L} 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, that wasn't strong enough. "Quit it or else." There, that's better. I recomend that you avoid all mention of he-who-shall-not-be named outside of dispute resolution and Netscott's talk, and that you be circumspect there. An attack is in the eye of the beholder, and we must err on the side of caution. There is nothing to be gained in the short term from banging on about this, so, um, "Quit it or else." - brenneman^{L} 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Tom, you've been blocked for a WP:3RR violation on the Islamophobia article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. There were a number of other complex reverts I didn't bother documenting. When you return, please attempt to work with other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

You might be interested in the Article for deletion on the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freagra

Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. B'fhéidir go mbeidh WP:3O nó WP:RFC in ann cabhrú libh. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Islamophobia

Irishpunktom, please review this request for mediation and agree to it. Thanks. Netscott 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|talk]]</sup> 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 :Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. B'fhéidir go mbeidh [[WP:3O]] nó [[WP:RFC]] in ann cabhrú libh. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
+==Mediation on [[Islamophobia]]==
+Irishpunktom, please review [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Usage_of_the_actual_term_.22Islamophobia.22_by_WP_editors| this request for mediation]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate|agree to it]]. Thanks. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)