See WP:3RR. 'The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion.' This means that even if you revert part of a specific edit (or most of it, as you did), it still counts as a reversion. - ulayiti(talk)14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. - ulayiti(talk)14:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was TRYING to find a middle ground between our two. I'm sorry that I didn't. Please assume good faith and unblock me, as I want the best for this article too! I won't remove your paragraphs anymore, but I think this is really not constructive to block me. Thanks, --Urthogie15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- ulayiti, it seems blocking Urthogie was a good decision, he appears to be breaking the 3RR rule often on many pages. I would recommend extending the block for a week if possible to prevent his needless editing. I will monitor any future edits he attempts to make to the Islamist Terrorism pages.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.109.206 (talk • contribs)
-- ulayiti, thank you for recognizing that Urthogie is errantly editing articles that should be untouched. I have made only one edit to this site to restore links that seemed useful, Urthogie claims that other registered users consider them spam but he seems to be the only registered user that continues to vandalize the page in question or comment on it. I find it interesting that one user such as him feels that he speaks for everyone on wikipedia. I salute your efforts in preventing his page vandalisms, wikipedia needs more users like you.
I apologize for assuming bad faith against you, anon. It just struck me as...suspicious that your first edit was two links to two affiliate sites. Im sorry.--Urthogie00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I certainly think you would make a good admin (especially since seeing some of your comments on Talk:Budapest), but I suggest you take just a little bit more time before applying. On contentious matters, you should focus on discussion more than just reverting others, since revert wars are not generally seen as a very good way to promote your views. And you should maybe assume good faith more often, but other than that I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be an admin. In a month or two, provided you fix these problems by then, I'd be happy to support your candidacy. - ulayiti(talk)09:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently fulfilled your request for a redirect of The furious five, and just wanted to let you know that you do not need the pound key to do so in the future. While editing a page there are a list of special characters underneath the sumbit button.... (#REDIRECT[[]] is listed in the bunch), I hope this helps. Have a good day. --Robert Harrisontalkcontrib16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am hoping for your help. Please look at V7ndotcom Elursrebmem, I am at a loss of what to do, if anything. Here are the facts as I understand them:
Article created 16 January 2006 by User:Papamaku (user's first edit)
Subject of article is a SEO competition, thus making a google test unreliable.
The competition started on 15 January 2006 and will last until 15 May 2006.
Other edits occur to article by non-registered users.
Article is "protected" (though only in words) by User:Papamaku (protecting page to stop it being abused by contest entrants) according to edit summary. (User's most recent edit at the time of this message)
No worries. It's always tough arguing for the minority position. At present you sound more exasperated than aggressive but you should hit that preview before posts and ask yourself "am I being unnecessarily snide or launching a personal attack."
Re the particular issue...we ain't going to take the day. I don't think anyone else who's posted has had the best of the argument but there's more of them and they'll not be swayed. Which doesn't mean give up--it's just something you have to accept about the wiki. Personally, as I think I'm making clear, I think Islamism is fundamentally a bogus distinction. Marskell09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have taken on a symbolic battle. If you do get the page-move to Islamic to stick, you'll only have a symbolic victory.
First of all, I don't think enough people support moving the page for it to be stable under that name. If you decide to go ahead, I suggest you list it at requested moves and try to develop some kind of consensus. I don't think contining the dialogue on the talk page will be productive, regardless of the logical merits of your position.
If the page is moved to that title, the title itself will be an editing magnet, and the article will get (even more) loaded up with disclaimers and qualifiers. I'm afraid we'll have a worse article under a better name.
The presense of the article under that name will be cited as justification for some compensating move elsewhere 'to make things fair.' I don't know exactly where it will pop up, but I'm confident that it will, sometime shortly after your proposed move is finished. Tom HarrisonTalk14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [[1]]
IronDuke19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't have AIM. In any case, the place to make decisions is on the talk page where anyone can participate or view the debate later--Lee Hunter13:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I thought I made my views fairly clear. You still haven't replied to them except by saying that they are "value judgements", and I still amn't terribly sure what you meant by that. I find it deeply frustrating to get involved in endless arguments over semantics, especially when there is a communication gap of some sort, so I haven't been back to that talk page. I have much better things to do with my time on Wikipedia. Don't take this personally - I just hate long, involved, nitpicking arguments and as I didn't feel you had refuted my points, which I think are extremely strong reasons why the page should not be moved, I left it at that.
I might add that I find it a bit strange that you are so obsessed with this issue. You seem to be a very reasonable editor in general, why not just accept that your proposal has not received consensus and move on to something more productive? What is so wrong with the title "Islamist terrorism", which nobody as far as I can see has suggested is inaccurate, compared with "Islamic terrorism" which clearly, in many people's view, has a lot wrong with it? Palmiro | Talk14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are talking about a subject, not something that has a definite name like a country or a river. "Islamic terrorism" is something that could logically mean quite a lot of different things, not just what this article is about, which is quite obviously terrorism carried out by Islamist organisations. This was one of my points, which you didn't reply to. And yes, we do have a standard for correctness in names, not just commonness - I don't believe anyone would seriously support using incorrect names just because they are more common, in point of fact as far as I can see you and Marskell believe that "Islamic terrorism" is not in itself an inaccurate or imprecise name compared to "Islamist terrorism". I and Lee Hunter disagree. So the question of whether it's the common name or not is sort of a red herring, in my view.
Try not to get stressed about this. I am also keen on implementing policy and making an encyclopedia that is as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, it is just as possible to disagree about policy as about anything else, and in the end it comes down to consensus, which clearly has not been achieved here. The article needs to be improved in lots of ways, and the title is hardly the most important one. Palmiro | Talk14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first of all, I actually don't understand why you are getting stressed about this. Let us assume that a Wikipedia guideline was about to be broken - it still wouldn't be the end of the world. I respectfully submit that Wikipedia guidelines are not a good target for emotional commitment. (That was a joke, though maybe not a very good one.)
Secondly, I'm now confused myself about what the policy you are relying on versus the guideline I am relying on is. By policy do you mean the main naming conventions page? It hardly makes much sense to consider that its summary trumps the detailed considerations that it refers the reader to. I would contend, were I a lawyer, that its phrases such as "a minimum necessity of ambiguity", must be constructed on the basis of the associated material it refers the reader to on precisely this subject.
To be blunt, you still haven't convinced me on policy and unless I'm missing something you haven;t answered my substantive points either, so I am remaining with my current position.
Finally, again, don't stress. None of this is worth getting upset about, if you can manage to maintain a philosophical approach. Please accept my good faith, I have no doubt about yours.
Hi again. I'd like to request a protect move from Islamist terrorism to Islamic terrorism. It has been discussed here[9] and even opposing editors admit that policy dictates that this move is correct. Thank you.--Urthogie14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please list this request on WP:RM. I'm a little busy today to investigate the circumstances behind this request; there are other admins there who can review it and act appropriately. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove AfD template before the associated discussion is closed by admin. There is no consensus yet, and 5 days haven't passed since the article was nominated. Grue 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Urth. Just the plain and simple one too, which is nice. The conversation went on too long ultimately and was simply moving more and more to opposed entrenchment and no where close to consensus seeking. It occured to me today, for instance, that we could at least accept "Islamist or Islamic terrorim" in the lead. This would probably still be opposed but at least would be a compromise offer. Marskell18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.
Islamism as an ideology is newer than any of the OED references, cf. absence of dhimmitude. The latest OED reference for "Islamist" meaning "Muslim" or "Islamic" is 1895. Perhaps we should change the page to Mussliman terrorism?
What I see as the best route is to separate Islamist terrorism and Islamic terrorism, with the latter linking to the former. Islamist terrorism will contain terrorism committed by organizations defined by either (1) a world government or (2) themselves as Islamist. I see no problem with a page having the name Islamic terrorism, I only want the content to be appropriate. --Mgreenbe20:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the OED website, which is about as up to date as you can get. The important point here is that the page at present should not refer to anything but pan-Islam- and Ummah-oriented terrorism. Some of the nationalist stuff belongs on Islamic terrorism instead, but I don't think a page move is appropriate. Not that I'll ever act on this, as this is the sort of thing I generally avoid here. I consider my vote on the page equivocal. --Mgreenbe22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some concern that the administrators' noticeboard isn't the place to announce page-move votes. It's listed on WP:RM and on the page, and that's probably enough. This ties in with the concern over messaging people about votes, though of course you informed everyone generally, so wote-stacking isn't an issue. Just for future reference, it might be better not to use the noticeboard for that. Tom HarrisonTalk20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for being open to compromise rather than reverting me again. I'm in the process of rifling through thousands of links to [[hip hop]] and finding that about 95% of them pertain specifically to music, and that a good portion of the articles at Special:Whatlinkshere/Hip hop weren't actually incorrectly linked, but just appeared there because they contained the stub template. I created a bot for semi-automatic disambiguation just a few days ago... it already has about 2,500 edits, lol... this issue seems to have been overlooked for quite some time. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:12, Jan. 21, 2006
