User talk:Netscott/Archive-03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the garden.
The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian


Archive-01Archive-02

Contents

Appreciation[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
mischaracterization or not, it is how you presented yourself. And I shall deal with the other user. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamikaze[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Hirsi Ali[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Series[edit]

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)


Talk:Allah[edit]

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[edit]

Thought you might be interested to have a look at [1]. --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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia related to that concept must stop.--Ben Houston 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gülen[edit]

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 [2] 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 [[3]] 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: [4] (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[edit]

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: [5] 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\talk 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 Wikipedia, 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[edit]

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

Islamophobia is a form of racism[edit]

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[edit]

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

Help for book review[edit]

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[edit]

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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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 Wikipedia 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Karl is the racist in Question, not you.I should have made that clearer, apologies. --Irishpunktom\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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\talk 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?[edit]

Netscott, have you filed for the dispute resolution yet? --Irishpunktom\talk 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\talk 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\talk 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the resolution process is the best way forward.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims[edit]

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 Appleknocker Flophouse 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia, again[edit]

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\talk 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I respectfully urge you to look at the comment I left here and I hope you take it seriously: [6] Thank you --FairNBalanced 10:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1[edit]

Heh.I knew what you meant.:)User:Zoe|(talk) 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I am blocking you for 24 hours for diisruption and WP:POINT violation in creating a tolling userbox Template:User Userbox deletionist with the edit summary 'another one to delete'. --Doc ask? 19:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually ask Cyde if he took offense? I've not been trolling on this Userbox issue. Honestly I think Cyde'd sooner take it well... I didn't make it with a mean-spirit. Netscott 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if he did take offense then by all means my block was justified... but after interactions like this where he responded with this, I think a bit of humor like that wasn't out of order on my part. Netscott 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The user box in question for anyone who might be interested in how it was an example of trolling. It was only directed at one person... whose character/sense of humor perhaps I misjudged. If I offended you Cyde then please accept my apologies... that userbox was sooner meant as a Tongue-in-cheek joke.:-) Netscott 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
In reality the Userbox thing is sooner a non-issue for me personally as I don't even use them myself. Netscott 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request talk[edit]

From the blocking policy that covers disruption there are two areas that seem applicable in my case: excessive personal attacks, and Users will normally be warned before they are blocked. neither of which relates in my case as I did no excessive personal attacking and I was not warned. I kindly request an unblocking. The fact that the userbox still exists in the only place that I shared it on would lead one to believe that it wasn't that disruptive.Thank you.Netscott 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've unblocked you. Please don't violate WP:POINT again though. jacoplane 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree not to violate WP:POINT. It was simply a light-hearted joke that appears to have not been well recieved. As I am so far out of the whole debate I did not realize how sensitive a topic it was. Netscott 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jacoplane... your assistance in this matter is well appreciated. :-) Netscott 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Darn it.. still IP blocked. :-( Netscott 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
now? jacoplane 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
All's well now... Bedankt! Merci! ¡Gracias! Arigato! :-) Netscott 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Why don't you ask Irishpunktom to just send me a short message, where he accept to follow this basic Wikipedia policy and end his personal attacks against me? I will remove my conditions from that section just a few moments after I get such a message and the problem will be solved. Fact is that I cannot agree to enter any kind of mediation with anyone that has made extreme and insulting personal attacks against me, and who will not agree to stop these attacks against me in the future. If medition is to have any chance of being succesful, then we need some basic rules, and some basic civility. If Irishpunktom doesn't agree to these conditions then there is no way I am going to spend time on it or accept it. -- Karl Meier 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't agree to end his personal attacks, then yes. But you shouldn't blame me. Would you enter mediation with someone who insult you like that, and doesn't accept to end these revolting insults in the future? -- Karl Meier 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay then. I'll follow the standart process and make the requirements later. However, if he doesn't accept this most basic condition later in the process, then I'll refuse the mediation right away. -- Karl Meier 09:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, and as far as I can see, they don't have any reason not to accept it. So, I'd be really surprised if they don't. -- Karl Meier 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem puppets[edit]

I must admit to reading this[7] with significant glee. "The greatest scientist". "True genius". Well, indeed. Thanks for the RFCU tip. Azate 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

University of Iowa? That's a Gülen favourite. They have the "Iowa Dialog Center" there. The genius is probably a menber:

Letter questions Oct. 24 article

The Press-Citizen's Oct. 24 article "Various Faiths, Common Table" left me wondering about your sources of misinformation.

Fethullah Gulen, or Fethullah Hodja, as he is commonly known in Turkey, is far from being a "philosopher," but instead a narrow-minded, religious fanatic, whose chief aspiration is to overthrow the democratic, secular Turkish government and install a theocratic rule in its stead. Contrary to what you purport in your article, the deceptively-named Iowa Dialog Center, a modern-day Trojan Horse, does neither in any way represent, nor is supported by the whole of the Turkish community in Iowa City. In fact, there are a significant number of Turks, including myself, who are unrelenting protectors and defenders of their secular democracy and who are disgusted by the likes of Gulen and their activities.

Further, Iowans would be wise to recognize the brainwashed, rugged young people who blow themselves up in the Middle East in an attempt to kill American soldiers and the brainwashed, clean-cut young people who throw parties at the Sheraton in an attempt to make American friends as the tips of two different tentacles of one and the same monster.

Oguz Poroy

Iowa City[8]

Azate 10:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Now, THAT would be fun. At least he could afford a keyboard with Ü's - his movement is worth an estimated $25 billion. But I'm afraid he's not into peanuts like WP: The Student Association for Islamic Dialogue at UTSA, present a program from 12:30 - 2:00 p.m. about peaceful hereos at UTSA main campus, University Center Laural Roon (2.01.28). Professors will discuss the Dalai Lama, Mohandas Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Fethullah Gulen and M.L.King. Also we will have some free food 12:00-12:30 p.m. at that day. Azate 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

O This user has a u-character with two dots on his keyboard.

RFCU result in[edit]

RFCU has confirmed[9] User:Rgulerdem to be the puppeteer of User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth. Azate Azate 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Thanks for the info about Resid.I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more help to him, but he just clearly isn't able to fit in. Johntex\talk 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Striking out[edit]

I've noticed your Striking on the Talk:Fethullah Gülen page.I am undoing it because (01.) You did not write it. (02.) It is ugly (03.) The fact that a sockpuppet wrote the text does not mean it does not deserve to be read. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunetly, Netsott, Your rather aggressive tone on the Admin Noticeboard drew my attention towards the article.. But, nice to know you are assuming that Good faith.. again! My above comments still stand.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Netsott, you should not be so combattive.i don't want to battle a user, but, your strike outs made the page ugly, and were unwarranted.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Netsott, your habit of stalking is well known, I was not stalking you, and had you not made such aggressive statements on the Admin noticeboard I probably would not have seen the mess you had made of the page. Get this, and get it clear - This is NOT about you, its not about any user, its about the fact that strike outs of numerous paragraphs are ugly and unwarranted. Also you, amazingly enough considering how often you use the word, spelled asinine incorrectly. But, then, I'm got no position tolecture in terms of gramma! - Irishpunktom\talk 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* - netscott, Do you really want me to post a list of times where your first edit to an article is to revert me ? --Irishpunktom\talk 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you should! - I have already told you how I discovered your messy, IMO, reworking of the page, but, you are choosing that there is some other reason behind it. Thats not an example of working in good faith now, is it! --Irishpunktom\talk 16:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not "label" - I asked you a question, because on appearences thats how it appeared.By asking the question I presented you with an oppurtunity to clarrify the matter.by referring to an honest question, as be "labeling" you as something is another example of not acting in good faith. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys! This seems to be lasting forever. Please make a real effort to sort it out because it is bothering. I'd be ready to help you in case you need it. Cheers -- Szvest 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Hi Netscott. Actually, my ultimate goal is to make this place a better place. I don't know if you followed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Babajobu 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2 (both of them were second nominations after both first ones failed because of the conflict between eachother). That, i believe, was the most hardest case i faced at mediation and since then there was no trolling from any side and both are now admins while respecting eachother.
The thing is to start from the begining and forget about accusations that were said from both sides. I can't judge neither you nor Tom. What i can offer is simple; listening to you while focusing on the points you could agree about. Hope that would work. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
No worries Scott. I'll mention that on the report. Just get ready ;) I'll do my best mate.
By the way, as you are one of the contributors who participates in Islam related topics, could you please have a look at Ali Sina's article? A group of the subject's supporters are pushing forward to apply their POV. I've been personally attacked twice, maybe threshold by a certain User:FairNBalanced while applying my admin duties. I am not in a mood to be a real rogue admin but it seems that i need a third party to help. The conflict is simple; that group of people are keen to add the subject to Category:Humanists when there's no notable source categorizing him as such. It's just plain POV mixed up w/ some uncivil behaviour. Thanks in advance. Cheers -- Szvest 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I am waiting for Tom's official acceptance. Don't worry mate. I'll be off till tomorrow anyway.
Thanks re Ali Sina. What strikes me more is that the contributor i am facing is not caring about wikipedia policies and i can't never abuse my powers though i could block him for personal attacks. I just let it go for now.Cheers -- Szvest 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Svesty-pie, for the record, (1) there IS POV pushing on the Ali Sina page, but it's not me.(2) The problem is that you're unclear on what Secular humanism is, and why it's not POV. We are not trying to call Ali Sina a "humanitarian" -that would be POV pushing (3) I'm not the only one who is clear on this issue (4) As I stated before, using the word "liar" in reference to you may have been a little harsh because it implies more than one lie- you only made one, so for that I apologize and (5) I really am a nice guy (I know you don't believe it), and if it makes you feel better, I will happily let you block me for 72 hours- without any protest. Why? because I think it will make you feel better.No, make that a 1-week block.Thanks, Love, FNB --FairNBalanced 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Scott for your clarification. I appreciate it. Cheers -- Szvest 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes. Azate 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though your assistance at Ali Sina was a success.Thank you very much for your help on this page.--FairNBalanced 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nixon's Enemies List[edit]

I noticed, that you compared former User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims to Nixon's Enemies List and would like to note the differences:

  1. My article does not list enemies or Wikipedians I do not like. Instead my list documented blocks of administrators I disagree with.
  2. Nixon has been president of the U.S. when he compiled the list. There's a big difference, whether those in power create a list of political opponents or "powerless citizens" critizise those in power (admins in this case).

Raphael1 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My sense of humor[edit]

Many people here don't get my sense of humor, which would be evident in reading the Ali Sina talk page.My tongue in cheek categorization is in direct reference to a Wikipedia Administrator. So, for the record, you were not the "Islamic editor" in question, which suspiciously looks like a reference to YOU after you removed my lovely user page picture :) --FairNBalanced 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tnavbar usage[edit]

Sure :) I get your point. --Oblivious 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam[edit]

Hi Mr Cotta Soma, Why did you revert the template? when there was consensus in the talk page? Has the diffinition for consensus changed again? Please explain  «Mÿšíc»  (T) 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar[edit]

Hi Netscott,

I've seen that this Tnavbar beast has been added to {{Punctuation marks}}. Was there any consensus on this? Personally I would prefer not to have it (as it will attract more random users who know nothing about HTML and CSS but want anyway to do their own modifications). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my talk page, as per the disclaimer at the top (I thought to leave a notice here as you seem to have skipped over it) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No that was all.thank you.--Dangerous-Boy 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

about the template[edit]

It was for consistency. Check the templates of other religions, template:hinduism_small, template:Jews and Judaism sidebar, template:christianity, template:islam, etc. and also I think you need to archive this page. cheers. Janviermichelle 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:SaintBarnstar.PNG[edit]

I reverted your edits to Image:SaintBarnstar.PNG; I created the image, and I did so for the then-existing Catholic Church of Wikipedia. The image has since been seized upon by the Saint's Wikiproject, but was not created for them. I have delinked "Catholic Church of Wikipedia", since the WP:CCW shortcut has been usurped, but the term should remain, as it is the group for whom I created the image. Essjay (TalkConnect) 05:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Baha'i template[edit]

Thanks for the new template.I've used your first try for Baha'i-2 as I think it looks better. :) -- Jeff3000 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry. The last navbar-plain fits well. I didn't like the prevoios one, since it used abbr. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Navbar2 and the Simpsons characters[edit]

Hi Netscott. It's okay now. I don't mind if it's called tnavbar2 or tnavbar-plain - just as long as it does what I want it to do. I've reinserted the centering. I thought that when it worked in IE, Firefox and Opera it had to work everywhere else, but I guess I was wrong. --Maitch 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay, maybe a little...[edit]

But I didn't disrupt Wikipedia to make it! If the wording makes editors of other confessions uncomfortable, this is a very good reason to change it.It should be, as they say, to acknowledge contributions such as those you've made to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and the wording ideally will reflect that.

In the meantime, feel free to give it to anyone who deserves it, taking its purpose at face value, with the understanding that we can change the title and wording later.Timothy Usher 07:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Islamic/Islamist[edit]

Hiya Scott! Thanks for the request. My basis has been that terrorism exists in Muslim societies. However, people who perpetuate it are called Islamists. As we can read in Islam and Islamism:

Since that time, Islamist movements, along with other political movements inspired by Islam, have gained increased attention in the Western media. Some Islamist groups have been implicated in terrorism and have become targets in the War on Terrorism.
and Scriptural claims aside, some Muslims disagree with the ideologies and activities of those identified as Islamists, while others support them.
Islamism attained its modern connotation in late 1970s French academia, thence to be loaned into English again, where it has largely displaced “Islamic fundamentalism.

Well, for me it is clear that Terrorism in Islam is executed by radical Islamists and therefore i've always called it Islamist X. I am also an Arabo-Franco-Hispanophone and most nationals of the countries who speak these languages refer to the phenomenon as Islamist terrorism. Check Terrorisme islamiste and also Islamistischer Terrorismus. On the other hand, to name only a few, academics such as Daniel Pipes, still calls it the same way i do. Notable press establishments such as the BBC, still do the same thing. Even the Frontpagemag does so... Personally, i'd like and i'd suggest that even if we'd keep it at Islamic, there would be a need to mention something about the ethymology to give a reader the chance to understand the confusion. Finally, for now, Islamic terrorism suggests the idea that there exist terrorism in Islam, but the thing is "who does it"! The answer is radical Islamists and not Muslims who are the largest majority. My question, why use Islamic when Islamist is the most accurate word? I hope this helped. Cheers -- Szvest 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Definitely Scott. -- Szvest 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


T2 debate[edit]

Still debated, yes...but User Christian and User Satanist just got deleted (not redirected to "interested in..."), so the precedent is there.That's why they've done this, to keep their network intact through misrepresentation.Obviously, the template is not meant to identify editors who are "interested in Islam-related articles" - we would know that anyhow simply by hanging around said articles - but those who claim to follow the religion those articles discuss.Similarly, the "Muslim Guild" - the sad premise that it's there for anyone interested in "neutrality" and "encyclopedic tone" in said articles is belied by the division of members by confession, and - get this - by the addition of the page to [[Category:Muslim wikipedians]] (a category which itself ought be deleted) which IPT has just restored.Timothy Usher 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad(S)[edit]

"...whose young age (said to be 9 or 10) at the time their marriage was consummated has been debated" sounds awkward, don't you think? BhaiSaab talk 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How about now? BhaiSaab talk 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. BhaiSaab talk 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for edit at Muhammad[edit]

Thank you for reverting to the version that doesn't take sides. I definitely have an opinion on the matter, but I've been trying hard to be fair. All three views are well-represented on the Aisha page. Trying to keep NPOV on this is exhausting. Zora 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Zora[edit]

Zora must realize that she cannot edit war with impunity without even trying to negotiate with other editors. She poured on me so venom and insults on my and the article's talk pages that, frankly, I've had enough of it. She resolutley fails to cite a single reliable source supporting her postion. Instead, she accuses me of lying and misrepresenting the sources I use: "I want to see the material you cited re Watt's acceptance of the tradition, rather than taking your word for it." Do you see it as an assumption of good faith? I don't. Pecher Talk 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you see as failure to assume good faith on my part? Indeed, I've completely disregarded the non-existing controversy and clearly stated my reasons on talk: the entire "controversy" section in Aisha is original research sourced to unreliable websites. Strategically, it could have been more advantageous for me to start editing Aisha first, restore reasonableness there, and switch to Muhammad afterwards; I got dragged into the conflict on Muhammad contrary to my intentions, simply trying to improve recent edits made by DLH. However, technically, I'm right: we don't use other pages as sources on Wikipedia. Pecher Talk 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, in my experience - and I'm sorry to say this - but Zora does not cut any breaks for editors who've supported her in the past, so to think in this way is a waste of time.
Over the past few days, she branded both Pecher and me as "anti-Muslim editors", accused us of pushing "our POV" about Aisha simply for citing Hadith (I guess these are now part of the "anti-Muslim" plot?) and spammed the talk pages of editors she'd designated as sufficiently "Muslim" to generate astroturf support for her "NPOV" (unsourced) version.This is entirely unacceptable.I'm at a loss to determine what either of us might have done to deserve such treatment, and have been forced to conclude that it's not about us, nor about the content, but about her own calculations.Timothy Usher 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)



Re: Your assistance re: User:SirIsaacBrock and User:Liftarn[edit]

Just a note to say that your diligence in pursuing User:Liftarn's report and subsequently User:SirIsaacBrock's report was greatly appreciated. Thanks for your assistance! Netscott 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems. It's always nice to put the blocks in the right place. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice touch[10].Timothy Usher 01:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Re[edit]

Hi Scott. Greetings man. Well, nothing to do w/ my faith. They first removed my lovely stuff here, then they decided that i had no right in being one of the be a Lennonist. So it's not about my faith. It's about Wikipedia. If you are interested to know about my personal beliefs in details please feel free to email me. Cheers -- Szvest 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Terms[edit]

Generally, I'm not going to suffer spam solicitations for POV swarms (as seen on the last Joturner RfA) without at least a comment of protest.Those who respond to these solicitations are acting as meatpuppets for the duration of their response.That's my understanding, at least.

Are there any particular diffs I can address?Timothy Usher 10:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

For your support on a certain very disruptive currently-blocked user's talk page.Timothy Usher 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:VOTE[edit]

Changing that shortcut is bad, because there are already many texts referring to that shortcut. By changing that redirect you are changing the meaning of all the messages, which use that shortcut already. Raphael1 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I imagined, that I've seen WP:VOTE before. Raphael1 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity[edit]

Netscott, are you an admin?if not, are you seeking adminship?Sometimes I feel as though you've taken me on as a 'mini-project' much in the way a social worker takes on a case. For example this edit: [11] After I realized then next day that this link I made should have pointed to Mohammedan, I came back to fix it only to find that you had beaten me to the punch. I thought this was kind of strange, because you only would have noticed such a difference if you were patrolling my User contributions, or that my User page is on your watchlist.May I ask what the reason for this is?

By the way, if you wanted to apply for Adminship, I would support you (support that you'd probably like to distance yourself from!).--FrankNBeans 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Any other questions? Netscott 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)" Where do babies come from?Okay that's a joke, that's not my question. So just to clarify, you came across that particular edit cited above by patrolling "related changes" (not to be confused with "recent changes").I'd never heard of it before.interesting.Thank you Mr. N. Scott. See you around,then;) --FrankNBeans 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I never considered "related changes" either.And of course I'd also support such a candidacy.
In the meantime, thanks for joining WikiProject Islam.Timothy Usher 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 arbitration[edit]

In response to this latest round of attacks on admins and outrageous claims of abuse, I have filed a Request for arbitration on Raphael1.--Cyde↔Weys 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sad it's come to this, but it would seem a pretty open-and-shut case.Please keep me apprised if there is some point at which it would be appropriate for me to comment as an observer.Timothy Usher 02:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]

Hi Netscott, regarding your revert of my edit in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: as the paragraph where I added "and so-called revenge killings" is a sort of short summary, I didn't find it appropriate to insert references. The related references are (and have been for some time already) on the page Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Human_costs. Two examples of "revenge-killings" are: the killing of Andrea Santoro, an Italian Catholic priest, on February 5, 2006 in Trabzon, Turkey, and the killing of a 67 year old coptic christian on April 14, 2006, in Alexandria, Egypt. In both cases the killers admitted acting out of revenge for the cartoons, according to the sources. --Túrelio 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With the new wording that you have added, it looks far more adequate to me. Thanks. --Túrelio 08:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

War Criminals?[edit]

Ariel Sharon popped up on my watchlist and I noticed that you added him to Category:War criminals. Your doing that is rather subjective and reaks of original research that is sooner nonsense. That category is primarily for convicted war criminals (ie: Julius Streicher) would you kindly self-revert rather than force others to have to do so? Thanks. Netscott 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As it says "convicted of or charged with war crimes" so no conviction is necessary. There are actually subcats for those who are convicted. // Liftarn

Picture[edit]

I fixed it, please feel free to tag the old image.Everything should be kosher now :) --FairNBalanced 16:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cent & Tnavbarmini[edit]

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. Kudos; the new gadget may prove useful. But please make a note of your technical change to the template at Template_talk:Cent. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings John Reid, thanks for writing me. Please forgive the lack of talk page addition on this template. I was in a bit of a "install Tnavbar" mode and happened upon {{Cent}} and figured much like the dozens of other templates that I'd previously added it to there'd be virtually no questioning of it.If you feel that the "gadget" doesn't belong or perhaps it should look differently I invite you to either remove it or peruse the current selection of similar templates. Thanks again. Netscott 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not criticizing the insertion itself; I could but then I could always find something to complain about: I'm a perfectionist. I think it's a good idea to be able to navigate easily. If I were to suggest any changes, it would be to include a wider range of links. I'm thinking of page histories.

But I only wanted to ask you to document your change; I didn't mean to speak to the change itself. I think it's important to make a record of what you do and page history only goes so far. If you've been adding your templates to other templates then I'd suggest you document that change on all affected template talk pages. It's harder for people to fight about what we do when we explain ourselves. John Reid 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but to be perfectly honest with you the very few occassions where there was some question about Tnavbar I've just sent folks to it's talk page to at least read the first paragraph to better understand it. I've added it gradually over the last couple of weeks trying to get a guage on it's acceptance and on those few occassions where there was some question I worked with fellow editors to assuage their concerns. Perhaps I'm too much of a "get things done" person and do need to do a bit more documenting... but with the little concern I've seen expressed regarding it I think I just need to find a happy medium. You are absolutely correct about a more extensive version of Tnavbar and in fact I intend to make such examples (which is why I said "current selection" :-) in short order. Thanks for your input and suggestions! Netscott 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 new section header[edit]

Netscott, hi.Thanks for keeping me informed about developments in the ArbCom case.I also appreciate your warning to stay out lest I get embroiled in conflict.I think maybe I can help Raphael1 understand some things about the Wiki way.The whole cartoon issue is a trainwreck I've never had the pleasure of examining up close until just now - he picked a hell of a point of entry for this project.Please let me know if there's any way I can help with the arbitration process.I know nothing about it, never having been involved in one. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1.Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence.You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New Barnstar[edit]

I personally prefer T.U.'s Islamic barnstar in this new format because it is much more prominent and doesn't look like some little awared shoved off to the side ......--FairNBalanced 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that my intentions are pure... I have nothing to gain by giving you an award, as this whole Wikipedia thing is essentially anonymous, and I most certainly do not have administrator aspirations.When you admonish me for an edit made (in your words) not "in good faith" I don't take it personally.I am very fair.Hence the name.
  • I don't make inflammatory statements toward all Muslims. This would be ridiculous and false.
  • The historical record backs up statements I've made specific to certain people, such as Zarqawi and Muhammad, which I believe are the edits you have questioned most strongly.
As I said, in every case I've seen you try to apply Wikipedia policies without inserting your own POV.In this case here there was a rare example of you backing me up. I was under the distinct impression that you really didn't want to side with me on the issue, but that you would anyway because my edit was supported by Wikipedia policy.
As for the last line, if you think it's too gay, I can take it out ;)(lol?)--FairNBalanced 20:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm realizing more from the suspiciousness of your comment- please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism in the future. I invite you to be honest and open.The barnstar was not given in hopes you'd be nicer to me.On the contrary, I always appreciate your input, please don't stop.But, I know you wouldn't stop even if I didn't ask- hence my comment on your barnstar :) --FairNBalanced 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember how I asked you if you specifically follow me around with all my user contributions?I just went to update the Chuck Norris template..... Dude, you were even there too! and you don't even use the Chuck Norris Userbox!!! (LOL) --FairNBalanced 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, FNB is fairly new here, and some of what he's said is inappropriate.However, I don't think it fair for you to use him as a foil to demonstrate your own neutrality.Remember when you were adding the image archive to Muhammad, with the "extreme Muhammad" section (which is worse than anything FNB has posted)?Should I have popped up all over Wikipedia disassociating myself from you?Just talk to the guy and explain why it's not cool.I consider that FNB is in good faith making statements against censorship.It's sort of a point violation, and it's incivil.The right way to stand against censorship is, well, to stand against it, as you've so heroically done in the cartoon controvery, not to make outrageous visual statements to prove that we shall not be censored.Timothy Usher 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removed.Timothy Usher 22:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course it's obvious.I think he doesn't understand that copyright info is serious business, and not the place for an attempt at humor.I was trying to figure out where to go to urge a speedy delete.Timothy Usher 23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw this right away.Thank you.Timothy Usher 11:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for you fair comments on wikipedia-Guild and now at Muhammad (PBUH) article. It is good to find a neutral person. --- Faisal 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue impressing me. :)
I haven't really formed too much of an opinion on this category but it does strike me as falling a bit outside of neutral point of view in that it tends to demonize Muhammad. As another counter example, I think a more logical and pertinent category might be Category:People killed by or on behalf of Adolf Hitler. Other counter examples might be Category:People killed by or on behalf of Jesus Christ or Category:People killed by or on behalf of Moses. Netscott 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [12] --- Faisal 09:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Are you aware of WP:ANI#User:Netscott_insisting_on_an_irrelevant_tag_and_acting_in_bad_faith? Probably not worth bothering, but I thought you might be interested. Azate 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, your most recent comments on WP/ANI were pointlessly rude, and deeply alienating to me.If that was your intention, mission accomplished.Timothy Usher 13:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: accidental blanking[edit]

Re: your comment:Holy sh-t!I had no idea I did that.I think I was accidentally editing a version of the page from edit history rather than a current version & must not have noticed the pink bar at the top.I will be more careful in the future.Sorry, Kasreyn 10:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Already done, and thanks for bringing it to my attention so politely.:)Kasreyn 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FG POV tag[edit]

I agree. This still need lots of work. I can't put back the tag for 3RR reasons. I you do, I'll support it. Azate 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag is merely a means to an end.The end is improving the article.Tendentiously placing the POV tag on an article without specifically identifying problems in the article is generally considered disruptive behavior.I urge you to work to improve the article rather than getting caught up in the silly little game of tag ping-pong.I haven't seen a single message from you on the talk page since I've started working on the article.How about you drop by and help, instead of edit warring over the tag? Nandesuka 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem is a permanently banned editor.I really don't particularly care how much you all hate each other.Neither, it turns out, do the readers of the article.All I care about is that the article be improved.The article will be improved by editing it and by discussing changes on the talk page rather than by playing silly little power games over a dumb template.If you want to improve the article, then improve it.Edit warring over the tag does absolutely nothing to improve it.Nandesuka 13:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

False accusations of Spamming[edit]

Just for the record of this talk page let it be known that User:Timothy Usher made false accusations on my talk page (since responded to on his talk page and removed) of spamming by User:Azate. Timothy Usher did not properly research why User:Azate left me the initial message above regarding the Fethullah Gülen article but rather than admit his error he merely deleted my message informing him of his false accusations with no further response. Netscott 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting, Netscott.You were the one that began removing comments, rather than let discussion proceed in the normal way.Timothy Usher 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your false accusations are disgusting.. there's no doubt about that. Netscott 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Now if I was making demonstrably false accusations I'd understand if User:Timothy Usher were to remove them but when my recommendations regarding making demonstrably false accusations are summarily deleted there tends to be a problem. Netscott 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please, Netscott, you've been removing comments from your talk page all morning.Timothy Usher 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that anyone has the right to remove commentary that amounts to nothing more than a false accusation. When one can easily verify the false nature of such commentary doing so is logical. Your removals on the other hand are not logical. Netscott 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher has been accusing the Muslim Guild and its members of spamming as well, among other things. BhaiSaab talk 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAR evidence[edit]

At some point you're going to want to post evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence (seeing as how you are involved in the case).--Cyde↔Weys 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who does the actual renaming?[edit]

Anyone can do this.It involves doing a cut and paste of the contents from the old name to the new one and then changing the category in each article to the new one.Usually this is done by some bots but they appear to be on vacation.There is a list of pending work at the bottom of the CfD page.Any user who wants to help can.Admins are only needed to actually delete the old cat when it is empty.If you decide to help, just indicate on the edit summary that your action is the result of a CfD.I usually say per CfD.Other link the CfD log for the date.Vegaswikian 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on vacation actually, you might want to ask me directly rather than going the roundabout route.--Cyde↔Weys 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FairNBalanced[edit]

Not at all, I saw it, and that's how I understand it. Pecher Talk 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people[edit]

So, whenever you feel frustrated, you find it necessary to strike at the usual scapegoat. I appreciate your finally removing your mask. Pecher Talk 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have followed the page fairly closely. Again, I appreciate your disclosing that you're siding with the most blatant whitewash imaginable. Pecher Talk 19:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you would agree to his inclusion on the basis that he is accused by paranoics of being an anti-Semite, while he is just a legitimate anti-Zionist. Can you offer any other interpretation of your opposition to him being included in Category:Anti-Semitic people? Pecher Talk 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. Senate and The Guardian don't count, that's for sure. Pecher Talk 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Usual sophistry aimed at covering up whitewash. Pecher Talk 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, calling a well-known hoax a hoax is sign of enviable courage. It doesn't, however, give you a blank check to whitewashing anti-Semites. Pecher Talk 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic People[edit]

You should really remove this page from the Anti-Semitic category. People will start to think you hate Jews. BhaiSaab talk 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BhaiSaab, Pecher appears to not be familiar with the colon before the cat norms (ie: [[:Category:Something]]). Netscott 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism?[edit]

{{unblock}} Let it be known that User:Sceptre blocked me for vandalism on a page that actually invited me to vandalize it.

From User:Sceptre's current user page:
User talk:Netscott/Archive-03 ==What you can do, and what you can't==
You may
Edit this page;
Redesign it;
Flesh it out;
Steal my design (talk or user);
You may not
Blank it;
Vandalise - use my vandalism sandbox;
Attack me;
User talk:Netscott/Archive-03
My only edits were to that page in accord with those rules: see history.
My blocking was an abuse of admin powers. Netscott 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Err, Netscott, His Userpage, not just the "vandalism" page have been affected - which could be the cause of this. Also, please do something or other on the RFAR page when you are free- otherwise I'll be blocked for talking .. again.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not seeing what you are talking about, looks like a normal user page... I never edited the user page. Netscott 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, thats why its weird. - But, Its all grey at the top, of the userpage, and in the grey it says

"PWNED on WHEELS!

if only temporarily.

-) Netscott

10:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)" .. Err, yeah.. RFAR for me too please.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well on my OSX Macintosh I'm not seeing that. Again, my blocking was unwarranted. I'm working on Raphael1's RfAr right now. More to come. Netscott 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, the Vandalism section is not jst a seperate page, as I had thought, as its sitting there at the bottom.Your vandalism automaticly goes to the top (Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle <nowiki><div style="background-color:gray; width: 100%; height: 100%; left: 0px; top: 500px; position: absolute; z-index: 0;"><center><font size="40">[[Pwn|PWNED on WHEELS!]]<br><br>if only temporarily.<br><br>:-) [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC) </font></center></div></nowiki>}
File:Wahtisee.jpg
this is what I see

- So, it is vandalising the userpage too. I'm surprised you can't see it SIndifferent.gif What browser are you using?--Irishpunktom\talk 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, a MAC. I'm on IE 6 here. Anyway, the block was only 15 minutes! I thought it was serious! --Irishpunktom\talk 12:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Macintosh Safari on OS 10.4.6, user page looks fine. Netscott 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care for how much time a block is, I don't take them lightly. On my block log they just make me look less like a Wikipedian in good standing.Netscott 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is what I see when i try looking at the userpage.--Irishpunktom\talk 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Trippy, that's not what I see at all. I see just a standard user page. It was not my intention to in fact do anything of the sort. Again, I only edited the actual page set aside for vandalizing. I haven't had time to analyze why that's occurring but I suspect that User:Sceptre must have some sort of a reference on his actual user page pointing to the vandalism page. Thanks for showing me your view. Netscott 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I got the same glitch on Sceptre's userpage (Using Firefox and a cable connection). I think that using templates on the subpage may have allowed it to appear on his main page, so I had to move your not-actually-vandalism-but-done-for-the-purpose-of-humour-vandalism to the bottom and destroy your formatting entirely. No long term harm done. Just ask for a "RFC" regarding your 15 minute ban and I'm sure you'll find many users who will support you once you explain.

Ardo Melnikov Yes, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak!!! On his home computer, 24.89.195.139 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

New Category[edit]

Hi Netscott. That is a great idea, but I think if I made it people will get mad at me because they will think it's a Muslim who's just paranoid. BhaiSaab talk 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a hard one - I found uses of anti-Islam on the internet but no one really defined it. This was somewhat useful. BhaiSaab talk 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. BhaiSaab talk 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How's this or this? BhaiSaab talk 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Views or attitudes opposed to Islam, or persons or organizations espousing such a view" How's that? BhaiSaab talk 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between a critic of Islam and someone who's anti-Islam? BhaiSaab talk 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I was about to put everyone in this list into the category. BhaiSaab talk 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The only people that I've inserted that remain in the category are Ali Sina, Craig Winn, and Franklin Graham. BhaiSaab talk 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I took out Craig Winn since I'm not sure about him. BhaiSaab talk 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Karl Meier felt the need to take out pretty much everything. BhaiSaab talk 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Karl Meier always edit wars with me, but okay, I'll stop. BhaiSaab talk 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving comments[edit]

Netscott, please stop moving my comments.It seems you've done other moves which may be quite valid, but you're also taking my comments out of context.They responded directly to another post.Whatever you're aiming to do, please don't seperate them.Timothy Usher 10:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, would you mind telling Timothy why you're moving comments around, he's clearly unhappy about it.Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You got reported for 3rr. BhaiSaab talk 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
How about this link BhaiSaab wanted to use to make an article "neutral"?"Intrigues of the Jews", "Jewish Conspiracies"...comments?Timothy Usher 09:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-rightousness[edit]

Have you considered that the self-rightous tone you're given to adopt in disputes might itself exacerbate those disputes?I know I can overreact to incivility, but it's not my nature to start it.On several occasions I've been surprised and appalled to see you attack me in the most dismissive terms, unprovoked my anything I've done to you.Here, it seems that your relentless prosecution of FairNBalanced has blinded you to the fact that I'd been pretty darned friendly to you (and for that matter, so had he). My defending him against the collective (and hypocritical, see Israel Shamir - oh, and did I mention your new ally?) two-minute hate on the noticeboard was no cause for you to assume my bad faith.Anything less than total and unqualified condemnation you cast as support for the hated Hate.Timothy Usher 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Had you stopped to consider that FNB's Zarqawi statements and the Abu Ghraib post - misguided as the latter was -might be ascribed not to hatred of Islam, but to hatred of Al-Qaeda?Had you considered that the depiction of Muhammad was a reaction not to Islam, but to cartoon rioters?You insist on taking the least nuanced, most condemnational interpretation possible, and one that doesn't show an adequarte understanding of American discourse.You've been Karl Meiering this guy.We're in a war, you know.We were attacked.I understand this is itself a simplistic statement, but it's a simplicity a very large number of people would sign onto.Timothy Usher 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Israel shamir[edit]

Okay, one last question.I've pointed it out, but there's been no response.Amibidhrohi - no surprise - seemed to find this perfectly acceptable, and BhaiSaab's link as noted above suggests that he, too, might fight this reasonable.What do you think of this?Timothy Usher 10:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear your feedback about Amibidhrohi and Israel shamir's anti-Semitic remarks, as well as BhaiSaab's link.Mine may not be the only good faith in question here - and as long as we're going to refer to what other people have said, I note that I'm not the first person to have raised this issue on your talk page.Timothy Usher 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't read anything after "Towards the battle of the Trench." That's why I said the first part. You should really stop assuming bad faith of everyone. BhaiSaab talk 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay.Timothy Usher 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving[edit]

My talk page has been archived.The intent is to help make Wikipedia not a battleground by moving sections that looked, well, like battegrounds.I hope this meets with your approval.Timothy Usher 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page was long... it made sense to me that you archived it... but I appreciate your sentiments as I share them. Netscott 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Then heed them.Timothy Usher 12:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking[edit]

Incidentally, Netscott, if you go to the discussion on Muslim Guild, you'll see that I, like you, was already involved over there.I was equally solicited, though inadvertantly, by the Guild.This has to stop, on all fronts.

Also: "Strange, there appears to be a voice missing..." is a sarcastic and incivil way to open a legitimate dialogue, which contributes to high tempers and bad feelings.Timothy Usher 10:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are turning my talk page into a battleground again, Netscott. Chill. I'm not really sure if you're aware how you come across, but it's pretty depressing to hear words of conciliation followed by renewed sneering attacks. I've posted what I posted, and as of now it seems that you're the one with nothing to say about BhaiSaab's spam. I proposed we join together as a matter of princple and I've done so. At this point, it's you who must substantiate your pretense of being an honest broker.Timothy Usher 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you're the one associating with editors known for anti-Semitic links and comments, not me.I'd hoped when I'd pointed it out to you the other night, you'd step away from it, but now you're stepping right back into the thick of it to eliminate a category which documents the murder of who?See BhaiSaab's link for further clarification.Timothy Usher 11:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You've just posted on ANI changing the subject from spamming to a personal attack on me, while I've condemned all spam.If you wish to be consistent, go do it.Then we have something to talk about.Timothy Usher 11:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I'd like to take this to some form of mediation.Are you up for it?Timothy Usher 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What's to mediate? Your repeated demonstrations of a lack of good faith are all that need to "mediated". Netscott 12:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Call it what you like, we can mediate that, too.I've made the determination that my talk page isn't a battlground, and I don't appreciate you making it one on what has become a daily basis.
Additionally, your fixation upon the word "asinine" has become irksome, as it's a way to attack contributors while pretending to review their contributions (see "infantile", "moronic", etc.)Your incivility is relentless, and has become intolerable.Timothy Usher 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Timothy I find your bullying quite intolerable now. Also, Netscott, thank you very much for defending me on the ANI page. BhaiSaab talk 17:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:Spam is not policy though - do I have to follow it? BhaiSaab talk 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. BhaiSaab talk 18:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Heads-Up[edit]

Wanted to let you know that I reinserted "aggressive" into the Canvass warning template.Reason being is that the ArbCom has specifically said "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice" (as cited in the template itself) — and so we cannot have a template that warns users for performing an action sanctioned as acceptable by ArbCom.However, conversely, ArbCom has also said that aggressive (their wording choice) cross-posting is not acceptable.Therefore, we can warn users if they have been aggressively cross-posting.That one word makes all the difference. — Mike • 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Navboxen[edit]

Thanks, I was wondering if that was a solution.Would it be too complext to have a template something like this?

{{fb start}}

{{Head-cum-Tnav|heading=[[User:Netscott|Clever template guy]]|edit=Head-cum-Tnav|background=#BFD7FF}}

{{fb end}}

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 15:01 19June 2006 (GMT).

Netscott 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks cool. I think you need the background colour (as an argument) though. Rich Farmbrough 15:15 19June 2006 (GMT).
That looks good to me.NIce to see it in extensive use already! Rich Farmbrough 10:44 20June 2006 (GMT).

restored[edit]

User talk:Netscott/test has been restored! — xaosflux Talk 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting WP:VOTE[edit]

Greetings, I noticed you redirected this to the proposed policy/guideline Wikipedia:Survey notification. Would you mind just leaving it as it is. It's a complementary shortcut to WP:NOVOTE. If Wikipedia:Survey notification is adopted... the question of that redirect should be revisted. Thanks. Netscott 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I dont know, how about making it a disambiguation page. The "Vote Stacking" really needs a good shortcut. I am open to suggestions as always. --Cat out 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative[edit]

Means "frowned upon" which is already in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering Fred Bauder 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative is a bit more POV. Fred Bauder 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it not true that when editors describe a fellow editor's conduct as "wikilawyering" such a description is pejorative? Netscott 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Azate's page[edit]

Hi Netscott.

I'm not going to stop you if you do. I've placed a little comment on his talk page. [13]The userpage / userbox pretty much says it all. Well, if he continues this way, the outcome seems pretty certain. Valentinian (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible oops[edit]

I substed the template in the introduction of WP:SPP, but it looks like I might have accidentally reverted your revert in the process [14]. you might want to check that the wording is how you wanted it. All I intended to change was the subst of the tl. --GraemeL (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye out for trolls on my talk page. No harm done with the TOC thing. I was even in the process of making a report when you left the message! I'll keep an eye on that page. That user seems to have problem with being civil towards editors, as I discovered by looking through his contributions. -- getcrunk ? 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeremygbyrne[edit]

It looks like simple collateral damage. I've unblocked him and left a note on User:Kcordina's talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for organising that for me, Scott. I really appreciate your intervention; autoblocks are very frustrating. — JEREMY 14:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, thanks for the note on Tom H's talk. — JEREMY 09:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been working with my ISP to resolve the problem, and they tell me they've now updated the DNS entry for their proxy, which I was told on the Village Pump: Technical would be enough to allow precise identification. I'm hoping the change will flow through by the time the repeat vandal sharing the proxy decides to have another go. &#0151; JEREMY 09:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Biff[edit]

Yep I know. I protected my userpage for the 2342nd time. lol Hopefully it won't be for long. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivil[edit]

In point of fact, "incivil" is a word and a synonym of "uncivil". [15][16] --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your 3RR report[edit]

At least, no one will be able to accuse you of being insufficiently open. Pecher Talk 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tnavbar[edit]

Ahh, that's why there were a few &nbsp; spread around in some templates. :) Thanks! – Elisson Talk 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the NOWRAP command is a good thing, as most templates have set a fixed width themselves. Nowrapping them makes them wider than they are supposed to be, and that is certainly not good when used in connection with the {{fb start}} tags, as that changes the width of all navboxes you use together with a wide header. The &nbsp; may be a little harder to "understand" how to use, but otoh, the user must do something to "ruin" the navbox (widen it), instead of as with NOWRAP, where the user must do something (insert <br />) to not "ruin" the navbox. IMHO, using &nbsp; when needed is a better althernative. :) I've thus reverted the NOWRAP on Tnavbar. – Elisson Talk 13:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In theory, the NOWRAP thing would be much better, but as said above, then everyone using the Tnavbar with a long header must be aware that they may need to use one or more <br /> to avoid unwanted widening of the template itself. Adding an unmissable notice on the template page on that matter might do. Feel free to fix the NOWRAP thing back in again in that case. :) – Elisson Talk 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

1) Please stop changing legitimate spelling conventions (q.v. Latin, French, Shakespeare) on my user page.
2) Please stop defending Anti-Semites.
Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement one is a total farce and typically hypocritical. Statement's like number 2 fully resemble their counterpart found in nature: the ASS. As well it is just a poorly veiled impotent personal attack. Netscott 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just scanned through your edits for the 22nd, and I don't get what Usher is talking about.Where are you defending anti-semites? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Irishpunktom, Timothy User thinks that User:His excelleny/Amibidhrohi is an anti-semite. H.E. made some valid points in terms of Timothy Usher's rather evident demonstrations of a lack of good faith relative to editing regarding Islam on Wikipedia of late. For the most part I happened to agree with a number of H.E.'s points. Somehow my agreeing with H.E. became "defending" him. Such demonstrations really show cluelessness. Netscott 09:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats the second time you've been "all but" accused of being an Anti-Semite.This is utterly ridiculous! IS there someone, or some process, you can use to try these malicious attempts at smearing your name? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Timothy Usher's ambition is to create shrines in memory of my name in every talk page. And I'm not an anti-semite. I love Arabs. You seriously should report this. God knows he'd do it against you if he had an excuse. His Excellency... 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why no categories in working versions?[edit]

Regarding Banu Nadir/mpov, I can't find a policy or guideline about categories in working versions -- am I missing it?Would it be better to subst out the templates and put a colon in front of ":Category" so that "citation needed" isn't removed from the text? Publicola 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam[edit]

Hehe! Thank you, AWB. LOL. His name was listed in WP:Jews and Judaism sidebar, and I wanted to notify everyone of the new feature. Not rallying the troops - b/c this just started. In any event, I stopped. Just hit a few choice users after unblocking myself. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CfD Organizations_accused_of_terrorism[edit]

Category:Organizations accused of terrorism is up for deletion. Thanks, --Ben Houston 00:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, the person who put up the CfD contacted 5 people about it using the exact same message I did, see [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21].I just copied his lead.It is clear a number of editors coordinated the CfD and how to proceed with it in order to avoid the category staying -- see his comment by Moshe to the CfD nominator here [22].--Ben Houston 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I just rewrote the response.I'll modify it further.--Ben Houston 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It really is not a question of my objection to any listing in particular, but rather my worry that the words "accused of" are inherently a POV by definition, and as such, the category is in violation of NPOV. The fact that it is a category that is listed on the bottom of the article seems like an official wikipedia endorsement of the label, which I would disagree with. Secondly, yes I'm aware that the other categories you mentioned exist, but they obviously cannot be used in most articles (they usually are reverted). The "accused of" category may thus be employed by some who wish to label a specific organization as "terrorist" but cannot, so resort to using this category instead. That is what is meant by the point that it circumvents a POV label, and the counterpoint is that this new category is still POV. Lastly, as I explained on CFD page a little while ago, I was attempting to summarize the opposition points as found on the category's talk page, some of which were points I had made but not all of them. The word 'weaseling' was in that discussion page but I copied it out-of-context and as such made a mistake for which I apologize.Also, the list of opposing points were in no way aimed at any one editor, category creator or otherwise. I was simply listing (summarizing) the arguments being made. Ramallite (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


JP Cartoons[edit]

I'm not working on it because I object to the tyranny of its majority. Hey, I spent a long time last Saturday providing a list of mostly easy-to-fix problems, and yet nobody bothered to even look at the bulk of them. — JEREMY 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott, you know the GA rules as well as I do: I am entitled to veto that listing, and have done so according to the rules. Why are you relisting an article that's as full of errors (leaving aside the bias, which we seem to disagree about) as this one clearly is. I mean, how many of my objections don't you accept? &#0151; JEREMY 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cedars has suggested a course of action not mandated by the GA rules, and every reverted edit "wastes the time" of the original editor; how is this dispute different? I might argue those editors wasted my time by almost completely ignoring my careful critique of their substandard work. I edited the article for some weeks several months ago, and after I was driven away by the attitude of the other editors there I have kept a close eye on it;I am exercising my veto rights as per the GA rules to keep this poor example of wikipedia's efforts from being misrepresented as "Good". I suspect you think this is both unfair and unreasonable, which is unfortunate — I'd much prefer to be working cooperatively with you — but I fear unavoidable in the circumstances. — JEREMY 14:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you think I'm acting in good faith? I don't think the article is "Good" so I've delisted it according to the rules, giving detailed reasons. Clearly, its editors are not prepared to listen to those reasons, or reason in general, so I don't work on it. Where's the bad faith? — JEREMY 14:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't 3RR'ed on GA; I've just chosen to respond to the edit summary discussion inline. — JEREMY 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Scott. What disruption have I caused? What happened to all the good will I thought we'd built up? — JEREMY 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Reliable source[edit]

I need your views on this. Thank you. --- Faisal 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)