User talk:Netscott/Archive-05

Welcome to the garden.

Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.
If you systematically (or otherwise) remove my courteous and respectful comments from your talk page (like so and like so)
but intend to post on my talk page, be prepared for me to move your comments to your talk page and respond there.

Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04

Admin?[edit]

Hi, I notice you' re a really active Wikipedian. I was wondering if you would like to be nominated for adminship by me; seems you' d be a good one. (crazytales56297 posting anon from 69.214.31.217) 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after login ~ c. tales ^*talk* 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

And FWIW I would still support [1] - why not?--Arktos ^talk 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I wouldn't hold blocks against anyone necessarily. I would want to know do they understand policy and procedures. I guess you need to holler for help quicker - many are willing to assist and would urge you to behave like a good wikipedian - taking the lift and not dressing up! Even though it might be slower - a more certain way to the top :-)--Arktos ^talk 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well not all of us are here 24/7 and some of us give up reading AN/I and PAIN from time to time because we get bruised easily. I would not regard a request for help on my talk page as spam and I am sure I am not alone. Feel free to ask me next time if others don't jump to. Don't compromise policy - it often helps to have a 2nd opinion which is the underlying basis for much of those policies anyway.--Arktos ^talk 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked where did I compromise policy? - I would avoid 3 reverts even in the pursuit of vandalism unless it is so obviously blatant that nobody but nobody is going to dispute it - eg inserting gratuitous expletive into another wise innocent article by anons. Dealing with registered users and tags is verging into content disputes. As per WP:3RR - Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct. Even if you vary content of reversions, edit warring with an individual should be avoided. My two cents and I am sure I don't always follow my own advice!--Arktos ^talk 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer remember why the religious display thing was relevant...[edit]

... but yes, those do look like religious displays. If I said they weren't, I was wrong. What did this connect to? BYT 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia AfD[edit]

I "fixed" it wrong. M'bad. :x Thanks for catching that, though. Luna Santin 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia poll[edit]

As BrandonYusufToropov said, "a published Gallup poll about attitudes toward Muslims constitutes "original research" in an article about attitudes toward Muslims? In what universe?".

Your argument here is ridiculous, and I'm going to ask for an admin to block you if you don't stop trying to vandalize the article by removing important and relevant information.

Islamophobia is exactly the same thing as anti-Muslim sentiment; in fact "anti-Muslim" redirects to Islamophobia.

So why do you insist on removing a valuable poll result about anti-Muslim sentiment from an article about anti-Muslim sentiment? Do you have some agenda here?

Deuterium 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be necessary to scientifically "prove" that the poll is relevant to the article. It's obvious to virtually everyone, as the consensus seems to be to keep the poll. If you want a reference that explicitly describes the poll's findings as evidence of Islamophobia to your standards, go ahead and find one, but don't threaten to remove the poll entirely because there isn't one yet. Deuterium 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be interested in this. Tewfik^Talk 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace weasel words[edit]

Well, quite a flurry of motions today. First off-- I'm sorry you disagree with Embrace Weasel Words-- I think it makes a good point, but even if you don't, there are many essays in the Wikipedia space that are controversial-- that's why they're essays, rather than guidelines or policies. . Regarding the image on that page-- thank you for spotting in incorrect link. I had considered a couple different potential weasel images before settling on it. Hopefully this resolved the copyright concerns about that image-- if not, let me know (and re-add the relevant templates). --Alecmconroy 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The atribution is in the form of the link to the webpage in which it was downloaded from. If you look at many other CC attribution images, on wikipedia and elsewhere, you'll find his form of attribtion is quite common. If you would like to add more specific attribution information, by all mean, you may add whatever other relevant information was uploaded to flickr by the original author. --Alecmconroy 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Embrace weasel words. Look forward to seeing your response. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.D. references[edit]

Do you just systemically hunt down anything that even references that site? Your bias (which you claimed to have none of/hollow claims of complete neutrality during the old AfD) are now even more humorous. rootology (T) 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I had Tony's page on my watchlist from interactions the past couple days, and I saw your name and remembered that you were just the guy that ran that AfD. But when I scanned his Talk page I saw you also had somehow found the Talk page thing (which was news to me). It was just an observation that you appeared to be searching out active references to the ED site, based on these two actions. In regards to your Troll comment, thanks for that. I begin to grow mighty tired of a small irrelevant clique of angsty users tossing that around like a tennis ball. rootology (T) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re AOL vandal[edit]

Hi Scott! Thanks for letting me know. I'll reduce the block to 24h as i already s-protected the article. Cheers -- Szvest 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "fair use" rationale[edit]

That image is on the Wikimedia Commons. The Commons do not allow for "fair use" rationale. You'd do well to revert Mel Gibson in good faith rather than editing without knowledge of what you are doing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what image you are talking about being on the commons, however, it is irrelevant if it is on the commons or not. Fair Use rationale or a similar free use justification is required on wikipedia. As for reverting in good faith, I did revert in good faith. As for knowing what I am doing, I know what I am doing. I suspect that you feel that your picture should remain. It is an awful picture and other pictures will do much better and can be supplied under fair use rationale. --Blue Tie 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was what I was suggesting you revert (where you reverted a Commons image back into the article). I've just done so because the image you reverted to wasn't a "free" image. The Commons only host "free" images not images that qualify for "fair use". The reason images of Mel Gibson are being deleted is because they aren't free and don't qualify for fair use. Fair use is only applicable when there is no "free" alternative image. At this point there is a "free" alternative that shows what Mel Gibson looks like and that is his booking photo. In an attempt to find a more agreeable image to show what he looks like I found the sketch of him and put that on the article. Perhaps you can source a freely licenseable image of him?

I have some bad news for you. The image you uploaded is a derivative image of a Touchstone Pictures copyrighted image. According to copyright law, derivative works must be authorized by the copyright holder. If this one is not so authorized and is not placed on the page under the auspices of fair use, it should be deleted. Since you have been deleting the other images, I think its fair that you delete this one too. --Blue Tie 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've not indicated which image your discussing that I've uploaded I recommend that you tag it for deletion or mark it with a tag that corresponds to disputing fair use. (→Netscott) 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really know how to do that. But the image is the one on Mel Gibson.--Blue Tie 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand drawings to be derivative works based upon Derivative work where it says that A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version." It also says: The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works. This concept also protects an artist from having his/her original work reproduced in a different media by another artist, without the consent of the first artist and The correct specific legal term 'derivative works' is only for a copyright permitted or licensed secondary 'work'. Any uncopyrighted, unauthorized or unlicensed secondary properties are called 'copies'. 'Copies' are not legally protected from the original copyright owners in copyright infringement suits. (technically this is a copy, not a derivative work and hence it is a total violation of copyright).--Blue Tie 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Mel Gibson's publicist and requested a released picture for free distribution. Whether that will get attention or not, I do not know. But, I think that under the circumstances, a fair use of a widely released publicity photo would be reasonable.--Blue Tie 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all an image on the Mel Gibson article has to do is show what he looks like any images used for that purpose will not qualify for "fair use" because his booking photo does in fact show what he looks like. (→Netscott) 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not know how the requirement for an image to show what he looks negates the "Fair Use" qualtification for a picture. 2. I do not know how it affects the fair use qualification of that booking photo in particular. 3. But per wikipedia policy and Jimbo articles are to avoid negative -- to the point of deleting information rather than keeping it in. 4. That image only shows what he looks like when he is inebriated. That does not fit the critieral of showing what he looks like generally. It is too specific an instance. It would be just as if the picture showing him painted in wode were used as an example of his countenance.. it would not be right. --Blue Tie 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit war on 3RR page[edit]

I've blocked you for 12h for this William M. Connolley 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) If you follow the diffs here you'll see that I was changing my content as I edited. How is that an edit war? (→Netscott) 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I was reverting edits that were geared to have me falsely blocked. (→Netscott) 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were to revert "Changing others' commentary" vandalism. Please review. (→Netscott) 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I documented what I was doing in good faith. (→Netscott) 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to further edit on the 3RR page relative to this matter. May I be unblocked? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its better that you sit it out. Not long now William M. Connolley 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the point you made on WP:AN/I. Have discussed with the editor and the 2nd listing is being removed :-) --Arktos ^talk 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all feel like quitting from time to time - I am sure you will get over it. Therapy is to get back to editing - preferably non-contentious articles, I recommend geography, obscure Greek goddesses or paddle steamers :-) - Otherwise I reiterate my advice to stick closely to 3 reverts and no more except for unmistakeably batant vandalism - then nobody can get at you. Sometimes on WP:AN/I they seem to ignore real issues and all want to get stuck into something apparently unconstructive to my mind. If no prompt action from an alert there, give some of the admins you know (and you know lots based on this talk page so one of them is likely to be awake and editing) a hoy to get more than one editor involved in the reversions and giving you the benefit of a 2nd opinion. Regards--Arktos ^talk 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterium[edit]

You're welcome. He's about to be blocked, I'm thinking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast and barnstar[edit]

That's quite a couple of days you've been having, Scott. Here's to regrouping, relaxing over a nutritious breakfast of all that's best at the Commons, and knowing people appreciate your work. For your valiant efforts to keep difficult articles balanced and NPOV, you are hereby awarded Bishonen's prestigious Blondin Trophy or Tightrope Award, a rare and coveted honor. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You're the man![edit]

Thanks for pointing out that I that didn't really break 3rr. :) BhaiSaab ^talk 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin recall[edit]

Hi Netscott, have you seen this: Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive2#Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure. --HResearcher 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information from Anti-Muslim sentiment[edit]

Hello, I was just wondering why you removed the following sections from the anti-Muslim sentiment page. I don't believe removing information simply because it is mentioned on another page (Islamophobia) is a good reason to do so, nor is it supported by policy.

An earlier poll of Americans, commissioned by CAIR, suggested that one in four Americans believe Muslims value human life less than others and teach their children to hate. ^[1]

In 2006 the Sunday Herald Sun commissioned a Gallup Poll, published on July 30, which reported that four in ten of those Australians surveyed "believe Islam is a threat to our way of life" and One in three people are more fearful of Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks.^[2]

^ Poll reveals US Islamophobia - October 05, 2004.
^ Islamophobia and imperialist wars - Green left Weekly. August 9, 2006

Deuterium 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Deuterium 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:SirIsaacBrock[edit]

hi, I'm having a hell of a time trying to list SirIsaacBrock's sockpuppet User:What123 at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. can you take a look and see if you can fix the listing? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'll likely not be necessary. Let User:JzG have a look (or another admin on the AN post). There is no doubt about this being a sockpuppet. (→Netscott) 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germen[edit]

Is his username actually blocked? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you can do a checkuser less they are actually banned.. I'll ask AE. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mizan[edit]

I created an article on Mizan for quick reference. Maybe it'll help someday. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning [edit]

You have violated 3RR at New anti-Semitism and may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself. The rule says that any undoing of another editor's work, in whole or in part, counts as a revert. It need not involve a straightforward revert and need not involve the same material. Please review WP:3RR very carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, Netscott, please revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I will revert myself if demonstrated that I have over 3 reverts. (→Netscott) 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to demonstrate it, it will be on the WP:AN/3RR board, at which point it will be too late. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on editing on the article anymore today so I'll not be further reverting. I'm not understanding either of your inclination to not abide by WP:NPOV and have the article read, "X says Y about Z". (→Netscott) 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, you're wasting everyone's time with this disruptive editing, 3RR violation, and now insisting we prove to you than you've violated it, whereas you could simply read the policy for yourself. If you do not revert yourself, you will be reported for the violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not going to be editing the article any further I would recommend that you not spend your time filing a report as there's not need for prevention here. I addressed you on your talk page and you failed to respond to me. What is the problem with citing a reliable source saying that the image is demonstrative of Anti-Semitism for neutral point of view reasons? (→Netscott) 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking but I can't help there. This content is out of my sphere. Anti-Zionism and Amti-Semetism seem often so closely linked that hard to distinguish. The poster does seem anti-zionist. Not sure that it means therefor it isn't anti-semetic - don't think that applies but perhaps if you wanted to make a clearer statement about anti-semetism as distinct from anti-zionism, a different lead photo might be a good idea. --Arktos ^talk 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not editing the article any further today is probably a good idea having counted the number of edits - they may or may not breach 3RR but calling on others to examine and comment on the issues is much better. I think perhaps in framing your arguments, you should call as much on the spirit of the policy as well as quoting the policy. I thought you had a good point - arguing to and fro about NOR isn't the point, a better caption would produce a more useful encyclopaedic contribution - no less no more and isn't a better wikipedia article what we are all on about?

It is my own opinion that the article would be better served by an image that does not confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semetism - I disagree with SlimVirgin's stance that because some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's the same as anti-Semitism; some will think it's anti-Zionist and that that's not the same as anti-Semitism. As such, it perfectly reflects the debate over the new anti-Semitism, which is why it's a perfect illustration for this article. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox, therefore it shouldn't be trying to provoke debate and it should say things in such a way if possible that they are just facts, no more no less. If the image is reflecting the debate in the view of the editor, then its caption needs to say that. I also think that anti-Zionist is not necessarily the same as anti-Semetic - that is my POV. The article doesn't make a call (and nor should it) However, because there is debate about it, I think then it is not a good lead image and better further down the article even though aesthetically it is effective.--Arktos ^talk 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill[edit]

You do good work 99.999% of the time, which is a better track record than mine by a long shot...maybe just take a break for now? Turn the computer off.--MONGO 18:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law[edit]

I just got expert legal advice and I found out what I suspected all along- that in a picture of a public event like a protest that even if one poster is the only thing that can be seen, the only thing that is necessary is the permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, the person who created the original poster is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Netscott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have stated that I will not edit on this article anymore today hours ago (and I have not). My block is unfair as it is not preventative.

Decline reason:

As below.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(→Netscott) 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit at 16:01. I stated at 17:02 that I would not be editing further today on the report filed against me. (→Netscott) 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have not violated 3RR on new anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my block reasoning User:Blnguyen states that I have been blocked for "many previous 3RR blocks". I have been blocked exactly 4 times for 3RR. Regarding my last block User:William M. Connolley stated that "Its quite possible that I could have checked a bit more carefully" relative to blocking me. If we discount this last block (I in fact was blocked despite the fact that I was reverting vandalism) then I've only had a total of 3 blocks for 3RR. (→Netscott) 01:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced your block time to 24 hours. Please turn off the computer. Or if you can't stay away, upload some images at Commons: or help out there in some way. Maybe work at simple:. Just stay off of here for a while. Bastique▼^parler _voir 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bon merci, c'est sympa de votre part mais honêtement je crois que mon bloquage n'était pas justifié tout d'abord. Je pense que Blnguyen n'a pas regarder les "diffs" et il m'a bloqué seulement sur les paroles des autres. Bon je vais me coucher. Merci encore. A plus! (→Netscott) 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would folks kindly fully review the diffs found on the report filed against me. I did not violate 3RR. (→Netscott) 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my last 3RR block the blocking adminstrator expressed hesitations about having blocked me due to the fact that I was reverting vandalism. (→Netscott) 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was engaged in a content dispute with editors User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg (who filed the report against me). Because of this section of WP:BP the 3RR report was worded in such a way as to make it appear as though I made more than 3 reverts. If folks would kindly fully review the diffs they will see this is true. (→Netscott) 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked it over and to be blunt, you're wrong. You've repeatedly violated 3RR and this is yet another example. Now be patient and wait your block out. JoshuaZ 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Two~~Three of the diffs show me editing content. The other 2 are reverts, I admit as much. Do you deny that is true? (→Netscott)

All the edits excepting the placement of the tag are the same edit in effect: making the image you object to not appear or adding your disclaimer to the image. All after it has been removed by other editors. JoshuaZ 04:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about editing of a content nature are you not? (→Netscott) 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance but how does "making an image not appear" = "editing in a citation relative to the image"? (→Netscott) 04:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is not that they are the same version but that they are all previous versions or are nearly identical in effect to what you had done previously. If someone keeps trying to push the same POV and finds a 100 different ways of writing it each slightly different, they'll still get blocked for disruption if they keep it up. Would you prefer I unblocked you and reblocked for something like "disruption, going over 3RR on many interpretations of it and tendentious editing" ?JoshuaZ 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going to bed about now. To a certain extent given your partisanship in the new anti-Semitism content dispute you're probably not in the best position to be reviewing my case but thanks for taking the time to look at the diffs and comment here. (→Netscott) 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a goodnight Netscott. As for that dif indicating partisanship, I would note that a) that dif specificly states a lack of full agreement b) even if I had been in full agreement with Jay on what was correct that shouldn't invalidate an admins ability to make a decision if they have been by and large uninvolved. To use a more clearcut example, if someone kept chaning the date of American revolution to 1774 and they insisted they were correct, an admin could still block the user even if the admin happened to think that the correct date was 1776. JoshuaZ 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man...[edit]

I just wanted to tell you that you have an awesome signature! —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♪-) 03:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro... took me awhile to come up with it. Yours is not too bad yourself. :-) (→Netscott) 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clyde Wey blocked[edit]

This person's explanation that they have the name "Clyde Wey" is plausible. I would recommend unblocking and supervision (to verify that there's not impersonation of User:Cyde going on). (→Netscott) 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. May I ask why you noticed this? JoshuaZ 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Category:Requests_for_unblock. (→Netscott) 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Yes there was[edit]

I think it should be obvious from our prvious discussion that there was a reason I removed the tag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your missing the fact that it in no way constitutes a copyvio. Furthermore your being quite passive aggresive about it. Your only evidence seems to be something that Jkelly said about it possibly being some sort of derivitive work, but he has made it clear that it isn't a copyright violation and can be used on wikipedia. Since wikipedia follows American law, and in American copyright law photos of public events can be photographed and published without the permission or even knowledge of the individual creators of the posters (even if their work is the focus of the picture). Of course you already know all of this since I told you, so I must wonder why you continue trying to make an issue out of this whole siuation, it is beginning to border on disruption.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you do not think that there is a problem with the picture as far as copyvios and legal stuff goes but act as if there was because you believe you can blackmail other editors into not opposing a completely unrelated change really makes me wonder how I ever had any semblence of respect for you as an editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you have brought up the supposed copyright issue you have later said something along the line of "I don't really want to do anything about the copyvio, what I actually take issue with is...". Any rational person would interpret that as an implicit statement that you will not pursue the copyvio in exchange for us not opposing your other change. That is very inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its your interpretation of npov, and its an interpretation that only a minority of other editors of that article share.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and anti-Semitism[edit]

Greetings, I saw your comment on Wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view and thought that I'd just comment to you about that. The problem that you will encounter is the undue weight portion of NPOV. Is the alternative definition you're referring to significant (ie: known by a large population)? (→Netscott) 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. You're the only one that responded to my question. Anyway, I've read the NPOV policy many times before I post my message but I didn't get any answer. You're saying it's a problem of each side's weight. You're right, but if we consider that 250-300 million arab (according to Arab) think that Anti-semitism should be applied for arabs also, doesn't they deserve a lot (or a little) more than a single sentence showing that this usage is unacceptable? CG 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat's blocks[edit]

Don't you think I learned my lesson unblocking you! I left the decision to Kelly Martin. Cool Cat's block is almost up anyway, We're best of freinds, and it wouldn't be right for me to do it. Bastique▼^parler _voir 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg[edit]

Hi, regarding your message on my talk. I guess it's now Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. I assume, without reading the article in question, that fair use rationale point 4 takes care of that. Besides, the page, where the counterexample is you pointed to, is a guideline not policy. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WMD template[edit]

Glad you liked the change! --Fastfission 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article on a complex subject[edit]

A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:

Israel lobby in the United States

--Ben Houston 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was because of how I was treated on NAS, primarily by SlimVirgin, that I moved on to other articles. Those are a better use of my time. I wouldn't spend too much time on the image -- it is pretty minor given how low quality that whole article is. I think that most competent people that read that article take away that it is written at a sophmoric level and its pretty partisan. I am (likely?) going to be contributing to the NAS article in the coming week with some major changes -- I'm going to suggest them and start some debate and then continue to push them. They are incredibly reasonable major structural changes thus they should be accepted eventually by non-partisans. Don't burn yourself out on just that image and remember to "roll with the punches." --Ben Houston 01:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms image[edit]

Hi Netscott, I am a little puzzled by your message because 1) it wasn't my upload, 2) the image source, according to Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Israel.png says as-is (is this PD?). If you feel fairuse is more appropriate, I wouldn't mind. IANAL. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know when it's time to give it up[edit]

My advice to you is to walk away from the New anti-Semitism article. This website has plenty of other articles that you can work on to try and make them more in line with what you consider to be NPOV. I would like to know, however, exactly what the problem is with the image in question since it appears to now be properly attributed. A poster like is bound to provoke a lot of people, none of which could be good. It merely represents what one poster maker wished to express visually.--MONGO 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of my good faith edits on this article have been reverted systematically (and with no prior discussion). User:SlimVirgin (and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg) are totally showing ownership of the article.

Now User:Humus sapiens who's been involved in the content dispute has blocked me completely counter to this section of WP:BLOCK. Hopefully there'll be someone in the right mind who'll read the ANI post and know that my block was improper and unblock me. (→Netscott) 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never wheel war, so I won't unblock you, but you can plack the {{unblock}} link up and see how that does.--MONGO 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Humus sapiens is asking you on ANI if you feel the block to be improper... so do you? (→Netscott) 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48hrs[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should at least be allow to continue the discussion on ANI. Humus you've been involved with this content dispute so you're not in the best postion to be blocking me. (→Netscott) 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happend to NPOV being non-negotiable? My efforts have been solely to maintain NPOV here and I've been thrashed about irregardless of my efforts.

I probably spend too much time here... so if this block stands in any way shape or form I'll likely pack up my career here. (→Netscott) 04:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your choice of behaviour in this situation, I've asked Humus for an interim unblock so you can contribute at ANI -- Samir धर्म 04:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's appreciated Samir, thanks. (→Netscott) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. I am willing to give you another chance. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I reject an allegation that I have "been involved with this content dispute" - diffs please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is in this thread and correct me if I am wrong but you didn't support my edits, no? (→Netscott) 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You're not serious, are you? One ambiguous comment in an incredibly lengthy thread, and suddenly you're claiming he's "involved in a content dispute" with you? This is about your trolling, not about content, and your claim about Humus sapiens is further evidence of that trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, Humus sapiens will likely admit that he didn't support my edits. I'm surprised how uncivil I've been treated by both you and User:SlimVirgin. I have been trying my best to make good faith edits relative to this image question and my treatment has been very disrespectful right from the get go. I even inquired on SlimVirgin's talk page about why she was reverting me. Did I get a response there? No. This image has a shady past. It was mistagged and uploaded as being an "antisemiticposter" and now Wikipedia is libeling the artist by not including clear sources and statements in the text of the article (or the caption). Why is that such a problem to do? (→Netscott) 05:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've been editing in bad faith, not good faith, as demonstrated by your edits and trolling. To claim that Wikipedia is libelling the artist, when it is you who keep posting his name everywhere, and associating him with anti-Semitism, against the objections of other editors, is the height of hypocrisy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said that. I've only spoken in terms of the current state of affairs. You know it is not a small thing to be branding the work of an artist as anti-Semitic and not support this in the article itself (two link refs to newsource blogs does not cut it). The reason this is the case is that by branding and artist's work as anti-Semitic Wikipedia itself brands the artist as anti-Semitic. WP:BLP does not allow for that. (→Netscott) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the one branding his work as anti-Semitic! See what I mean about bad faith? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't honestly tell me that with that image at the head of the article on new anti-Semitism Wikipedia itself is not branding that art as new anti-Semitism. (→Netscott) 05:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been explaining the same thing to you for a week now; that the image displays the controversy. Continuously posting the same arguments, even after they have been explained to many times by me and others, is yet another example of bad faith editing and trolling. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That someone holds the same opinions after you have explained to your satisfaction why you think they are wrong is not ipso facto proof of bad faith and trolling. As far as I can see you just disagree and put different weights on different aspects of the question. You emphasize the value of the image in illustrating the controversy on what is or is not new anti-semitism. That's a reasonable point of view. Netscott points out that by placing the image at the top of the article on the subject the casual reader can hardly avoid getting the impression that Wikipedia classifies the image as an example of new anti-semitism, something with implications with regards to our policy of sourcing controversial claims and being extra careful when living people are involved. That's reasonable as well. Haukur 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my asking you this question because it's kind of silly but are you familiar with the concept of implication? As in: through the juxtaposition of the image relative to the aritcle (with it at the lead, etc) it is directly implied that it is an example of new anti-Semitism? This is particularly true when there is no third party reliable source quote in the article relative to the image. That was the whole reason I made this guide. (→Netscott) 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week[edit]

Netscott, in accordance with the discussion at ANI and lack of opposition, I have blocked you for a week for your agitatory editing. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, for your own health, I'd recommend you take some time off anyway. I recommend you get involved in Wikipedia review... Frankly, the way some of our admins act as if their shit doesn't stink is starting to get on my nerves as well. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took the time to read the ANI section. I hope you don't mind me adding my voice. I think all this has just flown out-of-hand. Everyone on all sides needs to keep cool for a while. I agree with Bastique that some admins are running out of line - but you could always bring it up ti Jimbo - I hear he wants to know more about them. Until then, have a good break. Cheers, Ch acor (you may know me better as NSLE) 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up NetScott?[edit]

NetScott, how come you've been blocked for a week!? There must be some misunderstandings here. --Aminz 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

I know it's mean to kick a man when he's down, but does this not look a little ironic now? --Coroebus 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word in general your looking for here is karma, alternately see: justice. rootology (T) 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I've only been here for a few months. Everyone I've had disagreements with has been polite and we've been able to work out our difference and make articles that we both like until I met SlimVirgin. After I disagreed with her opinion in the article discussion, she put a sockpuppet message on my page and blocked me, apparently forever. I read what I could do about that and it said to put an unblock with brackets on my talk page, so I did. She deleted it and locked my talk page. Is there anything else I can do that would work? --Xosa 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

Thanks for the notes. Which claims included in my current statement are most relevant? Can you specify and I will rewrite accordingly. Thanks. --Ben Houston 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article.[edit]

Since the Arb request wasn't the appropriate place for content concern I have listed my big three on the NAS talk page as clearly as possible. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

If we can tackle these, then my concerns over balance will be addressed. --Ben Houston 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

voting[edit]

You're right. Still I think it might be good to have a disambiguation/overview page rather than a redirect at that title. —freak(talk) 19:17, Sep. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's clearly a distinction to be made between voting and straw-polling, and it's explained in that page itself. —freak(talk) 19:35, Sep. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom appeal[edit]

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have quoted your opinions in the statement of case based on a contribution of yours on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just wanted to alert you in case I was quoting you out of context. David | Talk 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics[edit]

ok, Sorry, but, you're going to have to be a lil bit more specifc here.. I'm very tired! --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reverted. Thanks man. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam[edit]

I see no evidence of a debate. Mind citing it? --Cat out 00:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bureaucracy[edit]

Kindly stop reverting things merely for the sake of "process". If you believe there was consensus to put the descriptive template on DDV in the first place, please point out where that consensus was established? Generally it is not necessary to hold a full discussion before placing or removing a template. Wikipedia namespace is confusing enough as it is without that. >Radiant< 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? You refer to an "essay I started" - neither WP:DDV nor WP:STRAW was started by me, nor mostly written by me, and I wasn't talking about the {{essay}} tag. >Radiant< 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. That page was created by Fennec in 2004. The only thing I did was copy it to this Wiki. >Radiant< 17:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't really surprise me, considering that meta doesn't have guidelines (I suspect that header on meta was copied from enwiki, it's relatively new). Other pages that are essays on meta but guideline or even policy on enwiki include m:Be bold / WP:BOLD, m:Patent nonsense / WP:PN, m:How to use or reuse our content / Wikipedia:Resuing Wikipedia content and m:Censorship_on_wikimedia_projects / WP:NDT. I apologize for using the word "obfuscatory", it was not meant as an insult but what I meant was that I found your wording unclear. >Radiant< 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French administrative structures[edit]

France is divided in 36,000 municipalites, which means nearly as many as the 24 other members of the European Union together. That doesn't mean that France has a lot more cities than other European countries, it simply means that where there is only one municipality in its neighbours, there are 5 municipalities in France.

The Paris metropolitan area alone is divided in 1,500 municipalities, which means more than the whole countries of the Netherlands, or Belgium. If we start considering that articles about French cities should concern strictly their central municipality, then we are blatantly hiding important informations to understand the structure of those cities.

Three users known as ThePromenader, Captain Scarlet and Grcampbell alias "Bob", are abusing of this structure in order to distort facts and argue that nothing outside the City of Paris should be mentionned when talking about this city. The fact is that the City of Paris represents only 105 km², which means only 3.8% of its urban extension (2,700 km²). This is due to the fact that the city of Paris has never been extended since 1860, which means before its major demographical growth began.

The fact that La Défense is not located in the City of Paris is clearly the result of this. The Hauts-de-Seine department, where is located this business district, has a similar population density than the Inner London. In using the argument that because it's not located in the City of Paris, it shouldn't be mentionned outside of a regional frame is nothing else than a lie. This is simply about taking advantage of the specificity of French administrative divisions to bring to Wikipedia only a limited representation of Paris realities. It is about pretending that an area encompassing 8 million inhabitants simply doesn't exist.

If you don't believe me, I propose you to check Paris on Google Earth. Knowing that I guess you have only a limited knowledge about Paris, that's the best I can propose to you in order to understand what this is about.

User Captain Scarlett has unilateraly violated the convention of naming of the Paris RER stations in order to apply to them the convention of French national rail stations. User Grcampbell, alias Bob, is located in the city of Marseille which is well-known for its rivalry with Paris and he confessed by himself that he disliked Paris. Finally, user The Promenader has fought during months in order to avoid the population of the Paris metropolitan area to appear on the article about Paris. Not only that, but he investigated on my account, since my first week on Wikipedia, to know what had been my internet activity in the last 5 years. He even accused me of being another user, something which was based on nothing outside the fact that I was interfering on his political agenda.

In giving your full support to them, you're actually promoting hiding informations to Wikipedia. We can perfectly picture the realities of Paris urban structure without hiding anything of its institutional structure. That's what an exhaustive encyclopedia should be about. Considering that the 105 km² of the City of Paris is the only frame which deserved to be mention in talking about Paris directly means hiding the other 2,600 km² of its urban area to Wikipedia. Such an omission isn't simply a distortion of truth, it is a blatant lie. The article about the tallest structures and buildings in Paris insists clearly on the institutional locations of the structures it mentions. There is no lie, no distortion of truth. I'm utterly fed up of people abusing of the institutional frame in order to hide factual informations about Paris. And I know that the user Hardouin hasn't been reasonable in his own side with his multiple reverts, but don't consider that one evil necessarily makes the other side good. Metropolitan 00:15, 23 September 2006.

The Promenader has fought during months in order to avoid the population of the Paris metropolitan area to appear on the article about Paris.

The above is completely untrue - I have absolutely nothing against using the term in its proper context, and when consensus was against including the above term in the article, it was I who defended it.

The fact that only Paris is "Paris" is certainly not a "blatent lie" - it is widely-referenced fact. Deviate from this and you're not speaking the same language as other references anymore.

Every article mentioning "in Paris" is not a demographical study on urban agglomerations: only in this sort of article and context can you 'bend the rules' like this, and this is only done for a) brevety and avoidance of repetition and b) because the title and subject of the article makes it perfectly clear what we're talking about. The motivations for trying to use this context in every Paris article without the context itself is... questionable to say the least.

So, hors contexte, if one would like to make a reference to a location in Wiki, that person must use the most widely-referenced local term to describe that location. Simple as that. THEPROMENADER 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris urban and metropolitan areas[edit]

The unité urbaine of Paris is not the Paris metropolitan area, it is actually the Paris urban area. Metropolitan areas are known according to the INSEE as aires urbaines. The Paris urban area is about Paris directly built-up extensions, it represented 9.6 million people in 1999. The Paris metropolitan area adds to this Paris satellite towns and cities. The population of the Paris metropolitan area was of 11.2 million people in 1999.

To your own informations, the City of Paris represented in 1999 only 2.1 million people and a territory of 105 km², which means a territory 15 times smaller than London, 12 times smaller than Rome and 7.5 times smaller than New York. The City of Paris has a similar population density as Manhattan. Considering that only the City of Paris should be mentionned when referring to Paris is exactly the same as considering that only the county of New York (known as Manhattan) should be mentionned when referring to New York City.

I'm fully aware that the city of New York institutionally represents 5 boroughs which is not the case for Paris, but try to imagine it would still be only Manhattan and I guess you'll probably be able to understand how limited is the theory saying that the City of Paris is the only significant territory deserving to be mentionned in talking about Paris. Metropolitan 00:31, 23 September 2006.

Please read this fully, it is extremely
important for your understanding of the situation[edit]

Of course La Défense is not located in the city of Paris but in the Hauts-de-Seine département (number 92), this has ever been explained as such in the English wikipedia as much as anywhere else. However the Hauts-de-Seine département is as densely built-up as the inner London ! It does not consist about a scattered sprawl located here and there in the middle of the countryside and having an obscure link with Paris, it is a direct urban extension of it.

When specifying that we talk strictly about the city of Paris in France, we use the expression "Paris intramuros" which can also be written "Paris intra-muros". It means the city "inside the walls" in reference to the Walls of Thiers (Enceinte de Thiers) which have been built around Paris in 1844. The current borders of the city of Paris is located, since 1860, at the level of those former walls after world war 1 proved them as useless. Paris urban extension counted nearly 10 times less people than today's when they've been built (1 million people in 1844 compared to 9.6 million currently. The same urban extension counted 4.85 million people when they've been destroyed (half of currently).

The French Wikipedia makes direct reference to that French expression of Paris intra-muros. It is well-mentionned in the French Wikipedia article about fr:Paris, just check the table in the demography section having as title "Population de Paris intra-muros". The fact that institutionally Paris hasn't followen its urban extension shouldn't be a reason to make as if that urban extension never existed !

As for La Défense, it is located outside of the boundaries of Paris simply because there wasn't any available space in the city of Paris to build it there (the city of Paris indeed represents only 105 km², which is rather small compared to Paris urban extension). However, La Défense is also widely referred to as "Paris La Défense", you can realize it simply in typing "Paris La Défense" on google. La Défense marks the endpoint of the Paris historical axis, which starts at the Louvre, and continue through The Tuileries gardens and the Champs-Elysées to finally end up in La Défense. To say that La Défense is Paris major skyscrapers district is not a lie. It has been designed as such and since then it has always been described as such.

The large problem in sticking in Paris municipal boundaries to describe Paris is that it leads people to think according to their own countries municipalities, which often corresponds to the core of their urban areas, if not their urban areas as a whole. This is not true when French people talk about their municipalities for the simple reason that in most case the central municipality represents only a tiny portion of this core, and that's especially true in the case of Paris. What represents the core of the urban area is what is usually described as "la zone dense" (the dense area). The "zone dense" is an informal expression to designate an area having no institutional limits which represents Paris and the larger part of the 3 departments of the "petite couronne" (inner ring). That expression "inner ring" or litterally "small ring" is generally opposed to the 4 departments of the "grande couronne" ("outer ring", or litterally "large ring").

Paris and its three neighbouring departments counted 6.2 million people in 1999. They represent an area of 762 km² and hence the population density of this area is of 8,110/km². Check most of the official municipalities of European capitals, none of them are that dense.

Why do I explain you all this ? Because it is very important to understand how Paris is structurated in order to apprehend that city. Sticking strictly to official boundaries to apprehend a city is generally disputable, but in the specific case of Paris, or French cities in general, this is a pure distortion. The contiguous built-up area of Paris spreads on four hundred municipalities, four hundred. On average, the size of the municipalities in this contiguous built-up area is of 6 km², which is an extremely tiny size, especially for an average. If the purpose of wikipedia is to describe things accurately, then the specificies of French municipalites have necessarily to be taken into account. That doesn't mean ignoring them, that would be foolish, it simply means to not consider them as the only relevant description of the structures of French cities.

Sorry if this post is too long, but this is important. Metropolitan 01:22, 23 September 2006.

Division of the articles in two tables[edit]

I fail to understand your last move consisting in dividing the table in two. You told me that your model was the list of tallest buildings in New York City, but that one isn't called "List of tallest buildings in the New York City metropolitan area". If your point is emulate New York City's list, then you should call back the article "List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris".

Now, not only you give a regional name to this list and as such ignore the fact they are all located in an area smaller than Brooklyn, but also you divide that area in two. What's your point in this ? Metropolitan 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Satellite towns ! Nothing less than that ![edit]

Your efforts to destroy this list of tallest buildings and structures are absolutely brilliant ! I must confess that you're a champion when it goes about this. Calling your second table "Tallest buildings and structures in Paris' satellite communes and suburbs", I must confess there's no better description for this. Satellite communes... I love that word ! How to disconnect as much as possible La Défense from Paris, you're a real genius.

Hey, wait a sec. I have a tip for your next edit. What about making one table for each of those "satellite towns" as you call them ? After all, La Défense is not a municipality. It is spread on three "satellite towns". Now that I think about it, your destruction of the article has still room for improvement. I can't wait for your update ! Metropolitan, 03:07 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for a week. Don't move pages where there has been a huge amount of discussion and no consensus for a page move. --ajn (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm at once extremely grateful for your knowledgable support, yet regretful that this resulted in your being banned. I did mention the ongoing mediation on the "tallest structures" page, but it looks like I should have been more explicit in my explanation. I know that on first sight the errors in the pages I mentioned look pretty obvious and easy to correct, but resistance to any corrections to these have created quite a bit of noise and the ire of more than a few. Perhaps I should have had a closer look at your pages before asking you to participate - this situation is certainly not for those easily offended.

I did review your edits and the ensuing talk-page conversations, and you were 100% dot-on accurate in everything you wrote. Your continued knowledgeability in such subjects will be much appreciated by English Wiki I'm sure, as there are very few of your kind concerned with fact actively editing there. Please do not be discouraged, and I again apologise for getting you into a situation that you were perhaps not prepared for.

Regards,
THEPROMENADER 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please don't do this, Netscott. Don't act in a way that would group you with Resid Gulerdem. You're not a troll, so please don't disrupt Wikipedia. – NSLE/Ch acor 09:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.[edit]

Good to see you kicking again. Thanks again : )

THEPROMENADER 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

I hereby award this French Barnstar of National Merit to Netscott for his interest (and patience) in the promotion of fact in all things Paris. THEPROMENADER 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for your kind and constant contribution to what should have been a simple affair. I sincerely hope to see more of your objective input and support in all articles of a similar nature. Thank you very much and bonne continuation.
THEPROMENADER 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective input ? Describing La Défense as being located in "satellite towns" from Paris ? Let me laugh ! Statistically, a satellite town isn't supposed to be part of the urban area. Rambouillet or Meaux are statistically satellite towns of Paris, La Défense is fully integrated to the core of the urban area. When I see someone splitting in half a perfectly coherent list and despite this continuing his efforts to massacre the page in giving an improbable name to the article, I find this pathetic. And when the same guy who completely distorts the truth has in his user page written that he wants people to stop "spreading propaganda", that becomes blatantly obscene.

ThePromenader, in making your little exercice of self-satisfaction consisting in giving to your banned buddy some undeserved merits, you prove how miserable you can be. Netscott's behaviour has been nothing else than trollish. Metropolitan 00:04, 9 october 2006 (UTC).

Self satisfaction? For echoing the contents of any encyclopaedia? Off the mark on certain 'satellite' usage, but this quite arguable choice of vocabulary remains one hell of a lot more factual than trying to say suburban communes are "in Paris". May I remind you, Metropolitan, that you were the one who originally split the list, and Netscott simply echoed your move - and mentioned that fact! A point of view shared by no reference can be very well be considered as propaganda for that point of view, so even there, you err, sir. Lastly, because of his actions that got him banned, I did have reservations about giving Netscott the award, but the reason for that action is more than obvious. He took more punishment than he deserved without a word of complaint, and still you aren't happy?

If there was a "thanks for sticking out a opinion-pushing bad-faith-based wear-'em-down campaign", I'd give it. Obvious fact in a 'speciality' subject prevailed here, and that is one part of that award I can give. Actually, Metropolitan, insults aside, thanks for your comments as they have allowed me to come 100% clear on all aspects of the matter.

Netscott, thanks again, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Suburban" ? Would you describe as "Suburban" an environment with a population density over 10,000 inhabitants per square km, where is located the largest cluster of office skyscraper in Europe ? That doesn't perfectly fit the Wikipedia definition of "suburb" and your constant effort to hide this fact from Wikipedia is mere propaganda. ThePromenader, you have proven that your own arguments are worthless as soon as they don't suit anymore to your agenda. Hence you considered the title would be valid if more than half of buildings would be located in Paris, and suddenly, when the list of the tallest 100 buildings appeared (a list where the majority of buildings are located in Paris), you totally ignored what you just said, and even worse, you accused me of being manipulative.

ThePromenader, your purpose on Wikipedia is to take advantage of the specificity of French administrative divisions in order to give of Paris a strongly limited perception of its size and influence. The purpose of an encyclopedia is actually to describe truth in all its aspects, something you violently reject in spending a considerable energy in hiding a massive amount of informations from the readers. If you want, you're perfectly free to give "awards" to people like Grcampbell who destroyed the naming conventions of Paris RER stations articles in order to replace it with the one of national rail stations. After all, this fits well you political agenda. However, stop to afterwards picture yourself as the "righteous guy" of the Paris page, here to defend the truth against the evil "manipulators", because you are actually THE manipulator, Mr. Promenader.

Some Wikipedians who have a lot more experience than yourself, such as ALoan and Trödel, have all told that the title of the page was acceptable in considering the content of the page. At the opposite to your propaganda, no fact has ever be hidden on this page. The energy you've spent to fight them proves that you have absolutely no respect for Wikipedia. Metropolitan 11:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

My purpose on Wikipedia is to make fact available to all as it exists everywhere. That's it. We both know perfectly well the fact of the situation, and we both know perfectly well that the opinion you are attempting to present as fact is nothing of the kind and shared by no reference in existence. The goal of Wiki is not to "educate" the ignorant with opinionated "truths" of our own conception - what you are attempting to do here is the equivalent of saying that Jersey City, New_Jersey should be called New York City because it is part of the New York City conurbation. You are the one with the unverifiable agenda here, not me, so drop it please. THEPROMENADER 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never told that anything outside of the city proper of Paris was in the city proper of Paris, Mr. Promenader. Keep lying if that's what makes you feel better. Metropolitan 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If fact and accuracy and fact were your real goals, you would not have made such a fuss over an accurate title. Every reference in existence indicates the fact of the matter, and even if you weren't aware of it already, all you had to do is read and copy. You know perfectly well what you are doing, so please stop pretending otherwise. You prolonged the question (where there was none) even against the advice of those in your same 'entourage'; to call me a liar in face of this takes quite some gall. I consider this conversation over. THEPROMENADER 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lot more concerned about facts and accuracy than you are M. Promenader. Never ever I have concealed significant informations on Wikipedia. Using the word "Paris" in a title in order to talk about its urban area has been considered as pertinent by several very experienced administrators as long as the context of that use was well-clarified. Something which have always been the case. In hiding the strong economical and demographical ties between Paris and its direct and dense extensions which consist in its inner suburbs, what good are you bringing to Wikipedia ? What's your purpose ? If you do live in Paris and you do behave in good faith as you constantly claim, take the time to visit Levallois, Vincennes or Issy, and tell me how disconnected those places are from Paris. And once again, I have never claim that those municipalities where inside Paris. Stop to always answer beside the point. Metropolitan 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So, you have never claimed that Paris' outlying municipalities were "in Paris" - by accepting no other option than the title "in Paris". Um, okay. THEPROMENADER 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY HAS THIS EVEN BEEN AN ISSUE????!!!! Give me a break... there is the "Ville de Paris" and there is everything else... please get over any idea of there being some other concept of "Paris". Thanks for the recognition The Promenader. Honestly though any Paris-knowledgeable editor would make the same edits.... it's just non-sensical to have it otherwise. I'm happy to see that the title of the disputed article has been properly set at "the Paris region" as it should be. Cheers. (→Netscott) 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris skyline[edit]

I do understand that there is a tendency (or two) for a 'seepage' of certain unreferencable "concepts" that need to be corrected here and there, but no need to go to such extremes: although it is not in Paris, we can still safely say that La Défense is part of Paris' skyline : ) Yes I do understand that showing that particular part of the skyline is yet another form of POV, but hey - just as long as it doesn't appear so often as to seem the theme of the article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just clarified it.... I'm not a fan of POV creep... there is Paris and there's everything else... that's not "extremist" but logical. (→Netscott) 18:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Grin) "POV creep" would about describe it. Until now I've called it "chip, chip, chip" - meaning "a hint here and a hint there that individually seem nothing, but together give a clear meaning." I see the logic in your edits for sure, but let's just take care of the "obvious" stuff first. Lord knows there's enough of it. I'll be getting back to editing I hope early this week. THEPROMENADER 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot[edit]

Fixed. The bug was due to an "X was here" comment being seen as vandalism. A length indicators used .+ instead of \S+, which caused the bug.Voice-of-All 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for educational purposes?[edit]

Is this for educational purposes [2]? --BostonMA ^talk 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize if the above comment is a little cryptic. I have asked HighInBc to be patient and hold off on deleting the other image of Muhammad. He has agreed.

I'm not entirely clear what is your position with regard to the images on the page. I understand the point about undue weight. Do you feel that images of Muhammad on that page in general give undue weight, perhaps to a controversy which has more to do with events in the last few years than with Muhammad? What would be your preferred solution to the conflict? --BostonMA ^talk 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COOL! if this link is to stay than as part of the proposed "compromise" all of the images that show Muhammad should be removed...otherwise.. there's no "compromise" is there? Please meet the compromise reqs You edit summary was great. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 07:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris[edit]

Hi Nesctott, yes thanks for letting me know. I can understand they may not have been very happy because I destroyed some dreams about Paris being a major global financial capital. The problem is that a lot of these country/city articles sometimes read as if they are written by some national promotion agency. We probably all make that mistake when we write about our own city or country. But then it would be great if an outsider picks up on that and tries to improve. For instance I have been giving suggestions on the Paris Economy article (on the discussion page) and there just no reaction. I think the problems with some of the Paris articles go much further than some geographic denominations. The same can proobably be said about many city contributions though. JGG 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JGG"

Tnavbar[edit]

Please give me an example of which pages were broken. Saying "formatting all over the place" and telling me how many pages it's used one (I had noticed) isn't particularly helpful. ed g2s • talk 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tables should always be written in wikitax, not HTML. The server load of the conversion is considered negligible. The text will also still be centred as a results of the margin-left property of the title div matching the width of the edit links. I do have a pretty strong grasp of CSS and Wikitax, so if you could point me to a page which renders incorrectly and perhaps show a screenshot...ed g2s • talk 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect List of converts to Islam?[edit]

Hello Netscott!

As you know, this page is regularly vandalized, with the "Criminals" section being erased maybe twice a week or more. Don't you think it would be a good idea to have it protected? I must confess I don't know the procedure.

Thanks for your help.

Mrbluesky 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen[edit]

Netscott, thanks for your detailed explanation on my talk page. I didn't notice it right away. I added some comments about my recent changes on the talk page. But I will summarize them here.

About the image: I copied it from http://www.sxc.hu/photo/455221. On their website at the "Restrictions" section they indicate that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo.". Isn't this sufficient to accept this image?
- Image happens to be with the same name with a previously deleted image (since it is the first and the last name of the person in question). I have no idea what was wrong with the first image because I didn't upload it then.
- I added the hangon tag to the talk page and explained my above reasoning there.

As for the new modifications on the article: You added the comment: editor demonstrating strange familiarity with the article (ie: trying to re-include a previously deleted image).... likely puppetry afoot. Is this referring the image? If so, I already gave my reasoning. If it is for the article too, my additions are completely authentic, i.e. not copy of a previously deleted article. I supported each statement with verifiable references and explained my reasoning very detailed on the talk page. (Talk:Fethullah Gülen) It took me really long to prepare a high quality text.

Thank you,

--Harput 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Template:Tnavbar edits[edit]

Hi Netscott,
Thanks for your message:

...I removed the as in my view they add more clutter than is necessary...

Ironically, I feel they reduce the cluttered look of the template code and make it far easier to see where the 'then' and 'else' conditions begin. I was hoping it might even be possible to add a few carriage-returns for the sake of the code's layout without affecting the output...

I'm not sure that an actual template ( · is needed for the spacing.... (with all of the & nbsp; code) there's a CSS no text wrap code that allows for plain space characters to be used. What was your thinking on that listing template?

Not being as expert a CSS/HTML user as yourself, I had no idea there is a "white-space:nowrap" option and didn't spot it within the code. So, {{·}} may well be redundant; its purpose was to aid linewrapping (i.e. make sure a wrapped line didn't begin with the divider/separator character) but perhaps white-space:nowrap takes care of this... On the other hand, how does white-space:nowrap handle wrapping a string such as "item1 · item2" if there's no indication where a linebreak may occur...? Sorry not to know more, David Kernow (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest[edit]

(rv, appears to break plain nodiv mode) ... (full rv)

Oh well... Seemed fine when sandboxing... It must be possible to fix the faulty title centering somehow; is it the result of some kind of interaction between class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" and id="Tnavbar-nodiv" or id="Tnavbar"...? Regards, David (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS An example of where the comment-free version broke down would be educational; thanks!

I only "full rv"d your latest two edits. Please have a look here...

Understood. Speaking of here, what do you make of it now...? David (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I think I see what you mean about the centering bit... I'm not sure what causes the Tnavbar bits to offset the centering but I encountered this problem before and came up with the header idea. There's probably a better more universal way though. (→Netscott) 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (a version of) {{Tnavbar-header}} within {{Navigation}} will resolve the problem... I have to stop editing for the moment, however. (I was also thinking of removing the need for the templateName / name parameter in {{Navigation}} via an <includeonly> magic word.)

Thanks for your prompt repair and for reminding me of {{Tnavbar-header}}, David (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for editing my user page. I really appreciate it. --- ابراهيم 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be you would like to join the mediation about Muhammad pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/Mediation . --- ابراهيم 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? =[edit]

Greetings,Before giving me warning you should see others who reverted my work many times. Give them warning too. If i am not allowed to edit and add information. they are not allowed to blank it too. if u only give me warning than it will be discrimination. So be neutral. see ya Embarkedaxis

Smiley Award[edit]

Feel free to place this award on your user page. User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

RfA[edit]

I don't think there's any need for "rehabilition". He's not under a community ban. CJCurrie 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanterre[edit]

Just a note (or two) on yesterday's "Nanterre" debacle. Both you and Metropolitan were wrong in at least one way - he for his blanket reverting instead of improving other contributor's edits, and you for over-zealousness in the "Paris and suburb" segregation. Nanterre is a suburb of Paris - there's no denying this - and in fact, any commune within the Paris agglomeration (conurbation) could arguably be called the same. No need to over-do it - the only thing to watch out for is people trying to hint that Paris' suburbs are Paris - there's only two to date pushing this particular POV ; )

My only concern yesterday was reinstating the removed contributions so that they could be built on constructively. I no longer have any tolerance for one contributor's outright reverting of another contributor's edits, save for vandalism - the correct thing to do is point out error in the talk page, then revert (or better still, correct) if there is no answer. An edit war will only result if one of the concerned parties refuses to discuss his actions/intent and found them in reason - this was not the case yesterday for sure. Still, edit-warring is not cool and poisons the general editing atmosphere.

Anyhow, thanks for remaining vigilant, but stay cool!

Best,

THEPROMENADER 10:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reverted two times and then proceeded with discussion while you reverted three times... you might want abide by your own advice. :-) (→Netscott) 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was - outright and thoughtless reverts to other contributor's work often incites them to revert back. I was reverting back ; P

Okay, not cool either. Good day! THEPROMENADER 15:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page of Islam[edit]

I have also contacted Dev about this, but can we please discuss these changes on the talk page? When a discussion starts about a series of edits, and those who take the time to discuss the matter agree to keep one as it was ("scripture") and 3 out of four agree to keep the other as it was ("the prophet") then it undermines the process for other editors to just jump in there and make similar chnages without discussing the matter. It is also insulting to those who have taken the time to explain the matter on the talk page. Maybe we should reword and end up removing "the prophet" but when a discussion is already in place the proper thing to do is to add to this discussion and not to act like a rogue. we're all in this together. Thanks.PelleSmith 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Seal of the Prophets[edit]

Hello Jotu, I'm curious... I seem to recall durinig editing on Muhammad that you were inclined to remove the see also link to the Seal of the Prophets article which as I recall you did because it was a bit too glorifying. Can you tell me why the Seal of the Prophets article is so contested as it appears to be? Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made substantial edits to the Muhammad article in a very long time; I don't remember removing the link, let alone why I removed the link in the first place. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response, I invite you to respond here if you'd prefer. How do you like to be addressed on Wikipedia now, as Tariq? I researched the phrase Seal of the Prophets and I better understand it now. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Yes, I prefer Tariq. -- tariqabjotu 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article you may want to edit[edit]

Hello again Tariq, I've started a new article about Saudi Arabia's first feature film: Keif al-hal?. I invite you to contribute to it if such an article might interest you. Thanks. :-) (→Netscott) 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy working on the Babur article, but perhaps I'll contribute if I have the time. This looks like a good Did you know... candidate once the article gets a bit longer. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian flim[edit]

Article looks fine to me. Until the film makes it to Netflix, I'm unlikely to be able to see it and have an opinion on the film. Zora 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see Zora commenting after a long time of disappearence from the hot scenes (i.e. religion related articles)! Thanks Scott for the note. -- Szvest 13:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]

By the way, there's a lot to say about Saudi Cinema (new movies, new and young actors, banning of the theatres, etc...). I just find it weird when i see no Egyptian cinema article! -- Szvest 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is rather odd given how Egypt is essentially the home of the Middle East's Hollywood. That definitely needs work! I'm very keen to see articles about Saudi Cinema... it is a great day when this aspect of world culture (cinema) becomes better integrated into Saudi culture. (→Netscott) 13:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, definitely. I've just added this to Wikipedia:Recent_additions#Did_you_know.... -- Szvest 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It became more encyclopaedic indeed. Good edit. -- Szvest 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Netscott. Unfortunately I haven't seen the movie. --Aminz

Yeah, it was interesting to me. So late. Kind of shameful :P --Aminz 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi cinema[edit]

Sourced it -- search on "public gatherings" in that article I referenced. The religious police do exist, of course, and I'm sure they're not crazy about this, but technically you can't have a spontaneous gathering in public (mixed or otherwise) for any unlicensed purpose. Or so it was explained to me while I was in Saudi. (If I'm off base on this, of course, I'll take it out of the article, unless someone beats me to it.) Peace, BYT 01:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me track a better cite down... BYT 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll see what else I can find. BYT 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]

Thanks for the note. I have explained why on the talkpage. Regards, KazakhPol 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid potential baised admins[edit]

I wish if some non-Jew and non-Muslim admin close the on going Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(second_nomination). I know it is not necessary that they are biased but still this is a very sensitive topic and I do not want to take any risks. How I should proceed? Should I post it on ANI or where? Thanks in advance. --- ابراهيم 10:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keif al-hal?[edit]

Thanks for the message, but i am not familiar with that movie... however, i do appreciate the message. Peace. --Striver 11:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam[edit]

Netscott, why must we recognize Ahmadis in the beginning of the Islam article? There are only a few million of them while the rest of the Muslim population comprises over a billion. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned here. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep[edit]

Hi, right now I am extremely disappointed after the speedy keep of third holiest site article. What should I do? --- ابراهيم 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Dear Netscott, Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[3] so that you agree with its addition (here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful Bird Template[edit]

I like the bird you put on the top of the discussing page.Opiner 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the bird'll help! :-) (→Netscott) 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: question[edit]

i've taken a brief look.. no doubt about the nature of the account but of whom is something i'll try to look into in a bit.. (i am currently filing a PAIN report :o). thank you for the notification. ITAQALLAH 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors[edit]

Netscott, having re-read the WP:SOCK policy, I found something of which I wasn't aware, WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors. Reading that, I have to agree that the use of this account violates the policy. Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does. So, with this edit, I'll stop. Good luck with the article.JustAnIdea 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. The only issue that I saw was the edit warring bit. You are correct in the permissiveness of having a separate account to quarantine one's (generally separate) editing areas but that doesn't go so far as to allow for edit warring (obviously due to the scrutiny aspect of WP:SOCK). As I imagine you're aware now, the scrutiny aspect is built into WP:SOCK so that an editor who has a history of warring/being disruptive can't merely create an account to sidestep this history. You should know though that although I didn't respond to them, your points were valid relative to the article in question. Again, I see two primary influences at play , one of glorification of Muhammad and the other of villification of him. If people would only edit with neutrality in mind... the differences in those influences would not be so great (as they are currently). Hopefully you'll remain involved in editing (peacefully! and preferrably with your normal user name) on this article because your balancing input is almost assuredly needed and also because you seem to have an ability for logical analysis which certainly helps. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 10:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with User:Avraham[edit]

Reading your comments on User:Avraham's ArbCom question page, you may be interested in the course of a discussion which currently appears on my talk page. I am greatly concerned regarding either this user's understanding of sources and/or his neutrality. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Third holiest site in Islam"[edit]

No, not particularly, but it just looked pretty bad style-wise. I mean, we don't even have quotation marks in song or TV episode articles, so this almost certainly doesn't need them. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken, although I think the title suggests that the phrase is being said by one particular person/source, rather than many as the case is. You're welcome to change it back if you think it's the right version and we'll see what happens as the discussion progresses. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's got some problems with equal time, but I'd rather not delete the whole thing, since it serves a purpose of pointing out important sites, and people's (cited) opinions on them. We have numerous other articles like this, and I guess that they all have this problem of one candidate site having more favorable discussion (not wiki-discussion, that is) than the others to a certain extent. I'm not sure it's fair to remove all the other candidates right away, nor does it seem very useful to try to fit them in an unrelated page (that is, mentioning other mosques/sites in the Al-Aqsa Mosque article, if I follow you correctly). --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nominating for AfD is fine, I guess. However, I think it has potential. As long as the contenders have some decent references to back them up, not just tourism guides, I think the article serves a purpose. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish to tell that it is relisted now. --- ALM 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blocks listed on Ahmadinejad Page[edit]

Specifically, I am just addressing your edit summary: "wtf? What do blocks have to do with anything".

I originally thought exactly the same thing, which is why I removed a block count in this edit. As you may have noticed though, it was added back User:IronDuke in what seemed like a bad faith attempt to make it look as though is is mostly "bad" editors disagree with his position. Rather than argue with him, I simply added block information for all people involved, not selectively like Ironduke did. Markovich292 20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on Mel Gibson[edit]

Taking it to the talk page would work much better, don't you think??Thanks--68.9.116.87 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Could you explain why you believe the following sentence is grammatically incorrect. I honestly can't see why that would be the case: "Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur'an, its principal scripture, whose followers, known as Muslims, believe God sent revelations to Muhammad." Indeed, it seems to me to be more gramatically correct than the previous version. Kaldari 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually copy-edited to improve the flow of the text. The redundancy was the word "believe". To be grammatically correct you would have to add the word "as" to the former text thusly:

"Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the Qur'an, its principal scripture, whose followers, known as Muslims, believe God sent as revelations to Muhammad." ... does that help you understand better? (→Netscott) 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may prefer the text as I've just copy-edited it, no? (→Netscott) 02:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds a bit awkward. "...believe God revealed to Muhammad." Believe God revealed what to Muhammad? "Revealed" is almost always used with a direct object. It sounds strange without one, like something is missing from the sentence. Kaldari 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence still doesn't make any sense to me, with or without "as". Are you trying to say:

Muslims believe God was sent as revelations to Muhammad.
Muslims believe God sent revelations to Muhammad.
Muslims believe God revealed himself to Muhammad.
Muslims believe God was revealed to Muhammad.

None of the sentences you have proposed so far make sense to me I'm afraid. Are any of the ones above equivalent to what you mean, or am I totally misunderstanding what the sentence is trying to say? Sorry to be so picky, I just want the meaning of the sentence to be unambiguous. Thanks. Kaldari 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it! There were so many clauses in that sentence, I didn't understand the relationships between them. I thought it was a compound sentence, but the last half of the sentence was actually meant to modify Qu'ran! Yeah, that definitely needs to be rewritten :) Kaldari 02:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

No, I did not violate this policy. Anyone who reads the policy and actually looks at the page history will see this. I'm tired of her incivility and the incomprehensible messages she continues to post both on the article talkpage and on my talkpage. If she does not speak English, I do not know why she insists on pretending she does. KazakhPol 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha are you threatening me? Go ahead and "work against me." You're comments speak for themselves. KazakhPol 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Pov-template-off-center.png[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, if you are not an involved party, please let me know. Thanks) --Aminz 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please specify if you are an involved party. Thanks --Aminz 08:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are not. --Aminz 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netscott, I know you are not involved. I just wanted to ask you to be sure. Just that :) Cheers, --Aminz 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zionist poster[edit]

It's a movie poster from 1930. I've put the movie poster tag , I see no reason why it was removed it should be restored. Amoruso 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to bother with it. Amoruso 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni? Me?[edit]

If I'm a Sunni, I may be the only Diamond Sangha Zen Buddhist Sunni in existence. However, since I've never said the Shahada, I think only my enemies would call me a Muslim.

In Frank Herbet's Dune, the mysterious nomads of Arrakis are Zensunnis. Perhaps I'm an exile from the future. Zora 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been many years since I saw the film, but I remember loathing it intensely. I remember with more fondness the time I first read Dune -- it was when it first came out as a paperback. My boyfriend at the time left it lying on a table in the living room. We came back late from a movie, he went upstairs to bed, I said, "I'll be upstairs in a minute," picked up the book, and read all night. Finished it as dawn was breaking. Ah, the resilience of youth. Zora 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd[edit]

I agree wholeheartedly with you about the "rasion detre" statement, and its inappropriateness. I am finding less support academically for the debate, but I find it very hard to say that there is no debate, as I think there are still enough acceptable sources to show otherwise. I agree with you that the article needs to be cleaned up from WP:OR, and perhaps recast, but I think that keep and cleanup is a better option than Delete. I am thinking of changing to conditional keep dependant on cleanup, and recasting the article more towards the sites and less towards the expression. What is your opinion on this idea? BTW, I'm not at my desk today at work and have a ton of meetings so I will less likely be online. So apologies in advance if I am not prompt to respond. -- Avi 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..[edit]

You found "one" :P Glen 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I think its clear the category is not designed for general use as you intend. Also, if you read those articles, you'll see that those people have their central occupations based around the subject. An actor who makes racist comments for 30 minutes one evening definitely doesnt qualify (no matter how bad the comments were) Glen 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR (from Strom's talk page)[edit]

Strom, I'm not sure if you're familiar with it or not but Wikipedia doesn't allow an editor to revert more than three times on a given article in 24 hours (see WP:3RR). You've got at least three reverts on the Michael Richards aricle so far: rv1 rv2 rv3. I'm cautioning you to be wary of any more reverting today lest you become blocked. (and know that reverts include partial reverts where you only revert part of a given article). Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! This is my fault; I had heard of the 3RR policy, but thought that it was just a limit on the number of times you could go back-and-forth with another individual editor reverting each other. I didn't realize that it was a general limit on the number of rv's for a single article. I have never read 3RR and made an invalid assumption. I'm sorry about that and I'll just leave the Michael Richards to the rest of Wikipedia to sort out for now. Good luck and thanks for your work on it. Strom 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of the lynching text I added was essentially a revert. One of the things that you can do is to "self-revert" by reinstating a given editor's work in some form. I would suggest you do that in this case. (→Netscott) 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do that now. Thanks again. Strom 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't revert my edits.... but I appreciate the guilt anyway, I guess. :-) Mad Jack 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Holiest[edit]

I understand. But just because something reads wrong isn't a reason not to have an article on it. Otherwise, we could just drop everything from Islam to ...

--iFaqeer 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: User DAde (talk · contribs)[edit]

hello Netscott. it seems that User:DAde has been constantly spamming the material found on his user page without any interest in discussion. when he is banned (or even sometimes when he isn't), he seems to get around this by editing anonymously, still persisting in quote-spam. here are some of the ips he seems to have been using:

there are possibly other ips and perhaps even other accounts. should this be taken to SSP or AN/I? ITAQALLAH 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Richards picture Loft (talk · contribs) ==[edit]

Aaah i saw the mistake :D...Thanks for all the help. I feel ready to go now :D (→Loft)

Tnavbar thanks[edit]

(copied over) Greetings Rex the first, now that a bit of time has passed I just wanted to drop you a note and express my appreciation to you for having improved Template:Tnavbar. Your code has made Tnavbar quite a bit more universal and easier to use in general. Cheers for that. (→Netscott) 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite enjoyed playing with template code, it's quite picky about spaces though. Have you thought of including Template:Tnavbar-header as an option, or is that too much? I was considering suggesting it but I don't think I have the time to do it at the moment. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 22:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

Thanks (areopagitica) for the helping hand. (→Netscott) 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad that I could help. (aeropagitica) 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hi Netscott,

I've sent you an email. Please have a look at it. Thanks --Aminz 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genius[edit]

Hi Netscott, FYI I find that this constitues a PA and is unacceptable. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism[edit]

I will reopen discussion on this title at a later date, when I have finished working on a few other things. When I do I will notify you, though generally I am thoroughly annoyed with your editing. On a separate note, I hardly see "consensus" on the current name for this page nor any of the other religion and terrorism pages. This is political correctness and partisanship run amok. KazakhPol 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Poll reveals US Islamophobia - October 05, 2004.

[2] Islamophobia and imperialist wars - Green left Weekly. August 9, 2006

[1]

[2]