Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 2 June 2006

Archive-01 • Archive-02

Appreciation

Netscott, I cannot overstate my appreciation for your involvement in discussions re my recent block. Thanks.Timothy Usher 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Thanks, Netscott! I've some things to attend to over here, so it won't be right away.

Can you believe what Sean Black just did on his talk page?Timothy Usher 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics2

Netscott, the new Wikiethics proposal has been moved to User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics and the discussion, along with those deleted comments to User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics. -- noosphere 08:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was already busy with it, you were faster. KimvdLinde 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it, then you overwrote it again. He has now fixed it himself. KimvdLinde 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I was fixing that. KimvdLinde 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is on my watch list. KimvdLinde 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

nonsense

Would you please explain, why my edit is "nonsense" on the talk page. I've already had a chat with Azate about disillusionment with multiculturalism on the talk page. Raphael1 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

no Obligation

There is no obligation on me to provide that to you. I did go looking for images that had specifically renounced all rights with respect of copyright connected to islamophobia, and these I believe are the best, if you can find better, please add them. --Irishpunktom\ 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to have concerns over rights, or are you just acting in bad faith? --Irishpunktom\ 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly, I didn't believe you before, and this proves me right. You are in no position to demand personal E-Mails sent to me, and I am unwilling to give them to you in light of our history. --Irishpunktom\ 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with those tags, they are exaclty listed as they are. The problem here is you, again, acting in bad faith agaist an editor you have a personal dislike of. --Irishpunktom\ 15:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Islamikaze

No worries, I've been watching it ever since I disputed CSD on it last week - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use distinct hits. 16000 is uninformative. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from a dizzy mind

Hey Netscott, Thanks for the note. Too much reading, analyzing and writing in the past month. I'm trying to finish a chapter in my thesis and arrange fieldwork, and have made myself the promise not to comment on the JPMC saga but only to listen/read (which I have done intensely) until the chapter was done. Which it nearly is, now there's just a defence left. I'm not too good at being single minded about things - even if I do mostly find the topic feverously interesting - I've just about had enough of chimpanzees, intentionality and pointing gestures for ... at least the rest of the week. :-) Keep up the fight. Varga Mila 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

original research template

You beat me to it. I was just about to create the exact same in-line template "original research?" with question mark and all. Good job. That's going to very useful. RJII 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I am on the IRC channel and I'll try to make some noise and get him blocked right away if he start reverting again. -- Karl Meier 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I'll comment on these issues later today, or tomorrow. I think I'd prefer if the whole thing was deleted though (both the reference and the combat section), as I doubt they help our readers to understand anything about the concept, or the discussion re the this concept. Frankly, as I see it, these fragmented, undigested and boring lists about what anybody and his mother has ever said or done about "Islamophobia" is just crap. They just waste our readers time and cheapen the article.

And btw. thanks for letting me know about the reverts at the Hirsi Ali article. -- Karl Meier 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it should be contrary to logic to add "alleged" to the title of that section. I guess the reason that I don't get it must be that English is not my first language, and that I somehow lack a sufficient understanding of the English word "alleged". I'll remove it right away though. -- Karl Meier 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts Hirsi Ali

Why revert it? It has become clear that her name is Ayaan Hirsi Magan, of course she is known by some as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but i put that in clearly, in bold. --84.30.97.206 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a true reverter :)

Hi Netscott, my only contribution has been on Gulen article so far as you figured out quickly. Well, man! you look like a real reverter. I just saw the message above, I know you are doing the same on Gulen article too. Thanks for the wellcome note. Mokotok 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Light&Truth

Hi

Thank you for the note... Light&Truth 06:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. Can you help me to make the corrections please. Light&Truth 07:36, 18 May 2006

So, are you a nice person or a bad one here? (You know from my page already that I am nice :) ) I should say that my first impression has changed a litle bit. How come you can support someone who hide some facts from an article. Are you for censorship? User:Azate is not a reliable person (my impression from his edits on the page) and to support his actions will lead you to the same position. Below he says in his message that he accidentally saw that article. It is unbelieveable to me especially after his claim that: 'I'm on home turf here.' There is something wrong going on here, be cautious ;) Light&Truth 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali

I noticed it. But on the other hand I thought that if he continue to move the article around, then he would be in violation of 3rr, and I then I could just change it back right away. -- Karl Meier 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Exotic's reply to your message on AHA page editing

Hi Netscott,

Thank you for your message. I have read the Recentism page following your advice. Thanks. Sorry for replying so late. I am new to Wiki and did not know where to find my messages. I hope that the issue is solved now. I scaled down my post and another editor put it at the end of the intro. I agree that it was too long and Zoellick's comment was not relevant for the intro. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Best

Argh you got me

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

Series

At least the Hardy Boy books are numbered. But really, I don't see why the word should be insisted upon even if by some meticulous parsing of the definition it could be made to fit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't so much "acknowledge the logic" of your argument as concede there just might possibly be some way in which it's not completely illogical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gulen

You know that I am correcting Azate's POV. I am providing the links for all statements as necessary. He deleted many crucial information from the article. Mokotok 04:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding. I added some comments on the talk page. But come on, where is his real involvement on the talk page? His talks are totally irrelevand and do not explain or answer anything. You should be able to see it yourself. Mokotok 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Allah

Thanks! I, too, saw the problem, but couldn't find the template on the talk page in order to remove it.Timothy Usher 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner

Thought you might be interested to have a look at . --Aminz 08:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Netscott! and thanks for voting! BEST! --Aminz 08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott! Sure --Aminz 08:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Fair enough. Next time I'll read a discussion in a little more detail before being bold :-) Nomist 18:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia Cat

There are equivalent cats for anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism. Islamophobia is a similar concept. I don't want to get in an ideological war. I've created a lot of categories and only once have I had one deleted. --Ben Houston 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how aware you are how sensitive this topic is but the creation of an islamophobia cat will almost assuredly start a battle over it. Netscott 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO the people that passionately argue over the complete non-existence of religious or racial disciminations/prejudices are usually people that are not innocent. I have witnessed first hand so many different types of religious and racial discrimination/prejudices. Although I can accept that some less than honest individuals will use these types of labels to deflect legitimate criticisms but this doesn't mean that the core discriminatory concept doesn't exist. --Ben Houston 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, when the term is solidified the cat can be renamed, but until then it is useful to have a placeholder than brings together all the related articles. I couldn't care less if you want to call the concept "anti-Crescentism" or whatever -- the concept still exists and it is broad enough to have a category. Just because the term for the concept is in dispute does not mean all work in Misplaced Pages related to that concept must stop. --Ben Houston 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gülen

I was suprised and glad to see you there, because I came accross the article quite by chance. I want 4 things in particular added to this article:

1) the intelligent design business. there's this article by Mustafa Akyol. at the bottom is a link to Akyol's "Intercultural Dialogue Platform", which actually redirects to Gülen's "Journalists and writers foundation". see also ] and Islamic creationism. I have some nice articles who expose these poeples bluff of posing as moderates while having a reactionary agenda, and copying the subversive tactics of the US fundie creationists. Akyol even testified in the Kansas creationism trial to prove that ID wan't a christian idea. Very entertaining reading from the horse's mouth about their idea of science: (at the bottom,"Main teachings")

2) THe Anti-Shia and Anti-Kurdish prpaganda of Gülen. I have publications to back this up. they have already been removed by his fanboys once.

3) The 1999 video affair, where the secret service played incriminating videos about Gülen's Islamist intentions into the hands of Turkish TV. We could need a transscript of the videos, or at least some good articles about the affair in English from a reputable source.

4) Gülen is engaged in shadowy stuff in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan et Kyrgyzstan, mainly via his schools, and their graduates that then go on to fill important positions in gov, mil, edu and business in these countries. This is mainly to counter Russian interests, and happens in coordination with some US players. Most of this is informed rumor. If you can find good sources in English, that wozuld be great!

5) Gülen is also jockeying for influence in Germany, by posing as a moderate representative of the Turkish, or general Islamic, community via 1001 councils, organizations etc.. I have stuff about this, but it's probably too boring to include, since he's not particularly successful at the moment Azate 05:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Netscott,

I thought about changing the intro section, because as far as I can see we don't have any strong references that support the definition of Islamophobia that we mention there. I thought that maybe it could be a better idea if we simply mention that it's a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition and that several individuals and organisations has suggested different definitions of this term and concept?

I am concerned that the current version of the intro section is in violation of policies such as NPOV and OR, and I suggest that maybe we could change it to something like this:

"Islamophobia is a neologism that has yet to have one clear and explicit definition. Several definitions has been brought forward by organizations and individuals such as Runnymede Trust and Stephen Schwartz, and these definitions are discussed later in this article."

What do you think about that? -- Karl Meier 20:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you could find a neutral and reliable sources, then I'd suggest that we replace our current definition and include that definition of the term in the intro and attribute it to that source. However, I haven't been able to find any such source myself, and one of the first things I noticed was a long list of otherwise very useful sources that unfortunately doesn't include the term: As I understand it, it's not out job to find similarities in the definitions that has been brought forward and make up our own "meta-definition" of the word, because as I understand it, that is a clear violation of policy regarding original research. You mention that the definition that we include in the intro is what is common to nearly all the recognized/notable definitions of the term. I have to say, that I find it somehow difficult to agree with that. If you read the points in a definition such as the one from the Runnymede Trust, then you could easily agree to some of them, and still disagree to the claim that you have a "fear or prejudice against Islam or Muslims as a religious group". I believe that it a slightly biased conclusion re definitions such as the one from the Runnymede Trust. -- Karl Meier 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good and useful definition. I'll add it to the intro section in a few monents. -- Karl Meier 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I also thought about that, because I noticed that there has been released a new (August 2005) edition of that dictionary after the 2003 edition that we are refering to. I'll make sure to mention it. -- Karl Meier 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice this edit? -- Karl Meier 23:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll review it again and make sure to keep that in mind. One thing that I also just noticed is that Irishpunktom is back editing the article, and seriously, his latest edits make doubt if he actually know what he is doing or if frankly he's just trolling... -- Karl Meier 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I or anyone else should just accept something like that? What he is doing is just outrageous. He's even reverting the (very obvious) positive changes to the intro section that where made yesterday. As I see it, it's nothing but pure disruption. -- Karl Meier 09:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to what you say, but Tony Sidaway would in this case be a bad choice. It would properly just make things more complicated, as him and I have a bit of a negative history, regarding some issues not related to this article or any other Islam articles. However, what you say is reasonable, and if we could find another neutral editor that might help us with this, then I would support the idea. I'll try to think of someone that might be interested in this, and I'll make a suggestion within the next few hours. -- Karl Meier 09:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I just noticed that Irishpunktom violated 3rr once again. -- Karl Meier 09:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the protection stuff... I am afraid that Irishpunktom will be all to happy to see the article protected on his version... -- Karl Meier 09:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Paranoiia man!! - Its on your version --Irishpunktom\ 09:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I would much appriciate if you did not allow such extreme personal attacks against me on your talkpage. I (and everybody else) are allowed to remove personal attacks on sight, and I quite offended that you allow such a dirty accusation against me on your talkpage. I'll report this when Irishpunktom return from his 3rr ban, and no I will not remove the report from the 3rr page, and I will not enter any mediation or dispute resolution with someone who insist on making extreme personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Such discussions doesn't matter. Name calling is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and I am disappointed that you still have this personal attack against me in your usespace. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Netscott. I'll file a report regarding this on the personal attack noticeboard in a few moments. -- Karl Meier 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dancing on vulcanoes

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

Islamophobia is a form of racism

Why? The anti-Semitism entry doesn't include the parties, who define it as racism, either. But I don't really care as long as you are editing consistently. Raphael1 19:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What other definitions on Islamophobia exist, which do not include racism directed towards Muslims? Raphael1 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't make sense and is plain wrong. Instead Islamophobia is a form of racism against the religious ethnicity of Muslims. Raphael1 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

original research

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

Help for book review

Dear Netscott, I'm writing a book review on The Bible, The Qur'an and Science and I would like to keep it fair and neutral without hurting anyone's feelings and still get the POV of the book across. Could you please provide me with constructive criticism and hints on improvement? Parihan 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes

I do tend to avoid Neologisms, and am aware of that guideline - However, when a Neologism enters mainstream, an article on it becomes needed. You yourself have tried to eliminate this article, you do not hold a neutral perspective on this, but it has survived two AFds so it cannot be avoided.--Irishpunktom\ 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your habit of wikistalking, unfortunetly, prevents me from seeing any of your reversions or attempts at removing information as "Good faith". Further, your request to refrain from Edit warring would ring more true if you yourself refrained from the practice. Also, WP:NEO is not policy. --Irishpunktom\ 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines, and do not need to be followed to the letter, you are trying to enforce it as though it were policy - its not. --Irishpunktom\ 09:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you go to Tony when there is a system in place to deal with disputes like this?--Irishpunktom\ 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you, who has collaberated openly with Karl - who makes no secret of his prejudices - and you who has tried to eliminate the article from Misplaced Pages makes me doubt the neutrality of Tony now. Nothing to do with Tony, unfortunately. As such, as there is a process set up for this kind of thing, it should be utilised. --Irishpunktom\ 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Do you want to make a new page just to deal with this process?--Irishpunktom\ 09:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Having an involved party name the Med will lead to accusations of bias. Its better to use the system in place. Also, your proposed page cannot be used, as it will show up as an article in the random article search, how about Talk:Islamophobia/dispute resolution ?--Irishpunktom\ 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Karl is the racist in Question, not you. I should have made that clearer, apologies. --Irishpunktom\ 10:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) The utilization of this word has been struck by myself in accord with WP:NPA. Netscott 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

delete extreme personal attack by Irishpunktom(reverted -Scott) -- Karl Meier 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I want you to know that I'll report you for your continued personal attacks Irishpunktom. I have already warned you about this. -- Karl Meier 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, if you want to discuss why I view you as a racist, do so again on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\ 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I only added it to your talk page because of the comments you left on my talk page. --Irishpunktom\ 10:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care one bit about your views Irishpunktom. You are to follow Wikipedias policies, and stop making personal attacks against me. However it is obvious that you refuse to do that. -- Karl Meier 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

karl, your edits on your own page were attacks against me, all muslims, and immigrants - And it is to that that I am referring. Netscott, Yes, but I added the explanation to the take page to allay your fears.--Irishpunktom\ 10:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom. I could call you a lot of names citing your obvious pov editing in order to attack the reputation of a well known defender of homosexuals rights. However I do not do that, because it would be against NPA, and unlike you I respect that policy. Anyway, you don't know anything about me, and your accusations against me are ridicules. Islam is not a race. -- Karl Meier 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gald you see he is a gay rights campaigner too. --Irishpunktom\ 11:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As the article mention, he's a British gay rights activists. Now, please explain, why do you hate homosexuals Irishpunktom? -- Karl Meier 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I don't hate Homosexuals. Peter Tatchell, however, appears to hate a lot of Muslims. --Irishpunktom\ 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl we are both using Netscotts page as a Proxy. In future, if you want to ask me a question, can you please use my talk page?--Irishpunktom\ 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think my talk page is pretty neutral to both of you gentlemen.. so by all means use it. Better to be talking than warring. Netscott 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edit where you remove the fact that he is also a human rights activists makes your intentions on that article obvious. -- Karl Meier 11:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets move the discussion on your pov edits away from Netscotts talkpage. -- Karl Meier 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

filed?

Netscott, have you filed for the dispute resolution yet? --Irishpunktom\ 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to pressure you or anything.. just wasn't sure if you were waiting on me to do it, as I was waiting on you to do it! --Irishpunktom\ 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel under pressure, I'm not going to be editing it till the resolution process is through. --Irishpunktom\ 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the resolution process is the best way forward.--Irishpunktom\ 12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

Thanks for informing me of the list. It doesn't bother me very much though. That's the price you gotta pay for being an admin ;) Aecis 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia, again

Could you protect this article while the dispute resolution process is under way? Netscott 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while the article isn't protected other editors are making edits that are at the heart of this dispute. Netscott 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, done, but in future please use WP:RFPP to get a quicker action. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFM is the best way to proceed, I owuld have thought. --Irishpunktom\ 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1

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

Blocked

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

Did you actually ask Cyde if he took offense? I've not been trolling on this Userbox issue. Honestly I think Cyde'd sooner take it well... I didn't make it with a mean-spirit. Netscott 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if he did take offense then by all means my block was justified... but after interactions like this where he responded with this, I think a bit of humor like that wasn't out of order on my part. Netscott 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The user box in question for anyone who might be interested in how it was an example of trolling. It was only directed at one person... whose character/sense of humor perhaps I misjudged. If I offended you Cyde then please accept my apologies... that userbox was sooner meant as a Tongue-in-cheek joke.  :-) Netscott 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In reality the Userbox thing is sooner a non-issue for me personally as I don't even use them myself. Netscott 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request talk

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

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

I agree not to violate WP:POINT. It was simply a light-hearted joke that appears to have not been well recieved. As I am so far out of the whole debate I did not realize how sensitive a topic it was. Netscott 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jacoplane... your assistance in this matter is well appreciated. :-) Netscott 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Darn it.. still IP blocked. :-( Netscott 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

now? jaco♫plane 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

All's well now... Bedankt! Merci! ¡Gracias! Arigato! :-) Netscott 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

If he doesn't agree to end his personal attacks, then yes. But you shouldn't blame me. Would you enter mediation with someone who insult you like that, and doesn't accept to end these revolting insults in the future? -- Karl Meier 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll follow the standart process and make the requirements later. However, if he doesn't accept this most basic condition later in the process, then I'll refuse the mediation right away. -- Karl Meier 09:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and as far as I can see, they don't have any reason not to accept it. So, I'd be really surprised if they don't. -- Karl Meier 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem puppets

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

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

Letter questions Oct. 24 article

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

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

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

Oguz Poroy

Iowa City

Azate 10:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

RFCU result in

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

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

Striking out

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

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

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

Netsott, your habit of stalking is well known, I was not stalking you, and had you not made such aggressive statements on the Admin noticeboard I probably would not have seen the mess you had made of the page. Get this, and get it clear - This is NOT about you, its not about any user, its about the fact that strike outs of numerous paragraphs are ugly and unwarranted. Also you, amazingly enough considering how often you use the word, spelled asinine incorrectly. But, then, I'm got no position tolecture in terms of gramma! - Irishpunktom\ 15:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* - netscott, Do you really want me to post a list of times where your first edit to an article is to revert me ? --Irishpunktom\ 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should! - I have already told you how I discovered your messy, IMO, reworking of the page, but, you are choosing that there is some other reason behind it. Thats not an example of working in good faith now, is it! --Irishpunktom\ 16:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not "label" - I asked you a question, because on appearences thats how it appeared. By asking the question I presented you with an oppurtunity to clarrify the matter. by referring to an honest question, as be "labeling" you as something is another example of not acting in good faith. --Irishpunktom\ 16:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Netscott. Actually, my ultimate goal is to make this place a better place. I don't know if you followed Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Babajobu 2 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2 (both of them were second nominations after both first ones failed because of the conflict between eachother). That, i believe, was the most hardest case i faced at mediation and since then there was no trolling from any side and both are now admins while respecting eachother.

The thing is to start from the begining and forget about accusations that were said from both sides. I can't judge neither you nor Tom. What i can offer is simple; listening to you while focusing on the points you could agree about. Hope that would work. Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries Scott. I'll mention that on the report. Just get ready ;) I'll do my best mate.

By the way, as you are one of the contributors who participates in Islam related topics, could you please have a look at Ali Sina's article? A group of the subject's supporters are pushing forward to apply their POV. I've been personally attacked twice, maybe threshold by a certain User:FairNBalanced while applying my admin duties. I am not in a mood to be a real rogue admin but it seems that i need a third party to help. The conflict is simple; that group of people are keen to add the subject to Category:Humanists when there's no notable source categorizing him as such. It's just plain POV mixed up w/ some uncivil behaviour. Thanks in advance. Cheers -- Szvest 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for Tom's official acceptance. Don't worry mate. I'll be off till tomorrow anyway.

Thanks re Ali Sina. What strikes me more is that the contributor i am facing is not caring about wikipedia policies and i can't never abuse my powers though i could block him for personal attacks. I just let it go for now. Cheers -- Szvest 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Svesty-pie, for the record, (1) there IS POV pushing on the Ali Sina page, but it's not me. (2) The problem is that you're unclear on what Secular humanism is, and why it's not POV. We are not trying to call Ali Sina a "humanitarian" -that would be POV pushing (3) I'm not the only one who is clear on this issue (4) As I stated before, using the word "liar" in reference to you may have been a little harsh because it implies more than one lie- you only made one, so for that I apologize and (5) I really am a nice guy (I know you don't believe it), and if it makes you feel better, I will happily let you block me for 72 hours- without any protest. Why? because I think it will make you feel better. No, make that a 1-week block. Thanks, Love, FNB --FairNBalanced 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scott for your clarification. I appreciate it. Cheers -- Szvest 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Nixon's Enemies List

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

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

Raphael1 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My sense of humor

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

Re: Tnavbar usage

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

Template:Islam

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

Tnavbar

Hi Netscott,

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

Hi, I replied on my talk page, as per the disclaimer at the top (I thought to leave a notice here as you seem to have skipped over it) —Gennaro Prota 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No that was all. thank you.--Dangerous-Boy 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

about the template

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

Image:SaintBarnstar.PNG

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

Baha'i template

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

Sorry

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

Navbar2 and the Simpsons characters

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

Okay, maybe a little...

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

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

Re Islamic/Islamist

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

Since that time, Islamist movements, along with other political movements inspired by Islam, have gained increased attention in the Western media. Some Islamist groups have been implicated in terrorism and have become targets in the War on Terrorism.

and Scriptural claims aside, some Muslims disagree with the ideologies and activities of those identified as Islamists, while others support them.

Islamism attained its modern connotation in late 1970s French academia, thence to be loaned into English again, where it has largely displaced “Islamic fundamentalism.

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

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

T2 debate

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

Muhammad(S)

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

How about now? BhaiSaab 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. BhaiSaab 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for edit at Muhammad

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

3RR on Zora

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

What do you see as failure to assume good faith on my part? Indeed, I've completely disregarded the non-existing controversy and clearly stated my reasons on talk: the entire "controversy" section in Aisha is original research sourced to unreliable websites. Strategically, it could have been more advantageous for me to start editing Aisha first, restore reasonableness there, and switch to Muhammad afterwards; I got dragged into the conflict on Muhammad contrary to my intentions, simply trying to improve recent edits made by DLH. However, technically, I'm right: we don't use other pages as sources on Misplaced Pages. Pecher 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, in my experience - and I'm sorry to say this - but Zora does not cut any breaks for editors who've supported her in the past, so to think in this way is a waste of time.

Over the past few days, she branded both Pecher and me as "anti-Muslim editors", accused us of pushing "our POV" about Aisha simply for citing Hadith (I guess these are now part of the "anti-Muslim" plot?) and spammed the talk pages of editors she'd designated as sufficiently "Muslim" to generate astroturf support for her "NPOV" (unsourced) version. This is entirely unacceptable. I'm at a loss to determine what either of us might have done to deserve such treatment, and have been forced to conclude that it's not about us, nor about the content, but about her own calculations.Timothy Usher 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ki$$

U know what u can kiss and don't post anymore spam on my talk page ! SirIsaacBrock 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)