User talk:Tickle me/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome from Redwolf24[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC) The current date and time is 30 May 2024 T 04:40 UTC.[reply]

P.S. I like messages :-P

Venetian governmental structure was a mix of Byzantine and Islamic systems[edit]

Actually, that wasn't original with me; I just cleaned up a lot of spelling, grammar, and awkward phrasing in various parts of the Venice article, and the bit about the origins of the government was carried over from an earlier contributor -- which isn't obvious from the way the history is shown, I admit. The only material I added that was new with me was military and naval. --Michael K. Smith 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germar Rudolf[edit]

Hi, I was surprised to see that there was no entry about Germar Rudolf, the famous Holocaust revisionist, in the English Wikipedia. I have undertaken to write one, from few works I have, (example, the text: "Forgetting the Fuhrer: the recent history of the Holocaust denial movement in Germany" by Anthony Long) and rewritten parts. I have also used a translator to translate the German entry: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf to take few more elements from it, and as basis to add on it what I want to add. But the translation is very unclear, and I am searching a translator that could do it. I was wondering if you could help. Regards. Fadix 02:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to comply, but that's quite a heap, I'm focused on Armenian genocide presently: did you know that Armenian_quote cites Cato Institute's Michael Chapman as having questioned the Hitler quote's authenticity? The alleged source is tallarmeniantale.com(sic!)
Actually, M. Chapman doesn't at all: it's the tallarmeniantale.com editor "Holdwater", who does - insulting Chapman as "crackerjack journalist" on the same webpage, too.
I guess, that the most part of the article is of similar quality; wouldn't you like to rewrite it with me? As I expect a lot of filibustering, I plan to rewrite it in a single step, preparing a page that backs authoritatively every sentence. The quote cannot be proven, so much is true, but expect it to be likely to be true; so it's the final evaluation, that counts. As an evaluation should only be done when everything is foolproof, deleting the forged Chapman citation alone wouldn't justify the deletion or massive alteration of the articles final paragraph. Therefore, I want to move on tactically. That might not be quite wikipedic, but I've had it with the disinformation flak I encountered on de:
This is not meant as blackmail; if you need the translation on Germar Rudolf first, I can comply, but I'd do it paragraph by paragraph, according to my time scedule. I'm proposing doing Armenian_quote first (possibly I'll have a look at Armenian_genocide afterwards) and Rudolf later. --Tickle me 05:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rely on “Holdwater” webpage for anything. I confronted the guy in genocide.com in the past, after having exposed large sections of his website and having given various examples of fabrication of quotes etc. the guy just left. The website later was hacked by Turkish hackers, and the administration has installed a new forum. Holdwater also appeared in Wikipedia under the alias “Torque” and played with those entries regarding the Armenian "question." Torque website slanders authors, fabricate, manipulate etc. I have answered him in the Armenian genocide archives, Fadix analysis section. The guy is a racist, and it would be very easy to shut his site because of legal issues, some have proposed this, but I have refused.
As far as the quote goes, its authenticity is disputed, but not as much as revisionists claim. There are various evidences pointing to an authenticity. I will help you if you want. Have you started working on it? Fadix 15:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added something in your working versions talk page, I'll talk about the article there. Fadix 19:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving[edit]

Hallo Holgerjan, ich habe die de: Beiträge auf meine de: talk verschoben, da Ihr hier ja nicht signieren könnt, das war keine gute Idee von mir. --Tickle me 14:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten answering you. I will email you more about it. Regards. Fadix 22:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tmp[edit]

Armenian language:


Dada[edit]

Hello, I noticed you removed the Bonzo Dog Band from Dada on the grounds that the article is about the art movement that finished in the 20s/30s. However, it has a section called legacy and you haven't removed Tom Stoppard. Can you explain your reasoning in more detail? Thanks. --bodnotbod 05:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I answered you on Talk:Dada. --Tickle me 06:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with Armenian[edit]

Hi, as I said at Talk:Armenian language, I'm not really sure what I can do. At best I can block the IP for disruptive behavior or vandalism, but first there need to be warnings on his talk page. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for some suggestions of the type of warning you can give. If he persists after three warnings, let me know and I'll block him. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel spam[edit]

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you really shouldn't try to tag other people's user-pages for speedy deletion. It's bad manners.

That said, you're right, he does look like spamming filth. I'm giving him one more warning. If he does it again, drop me a note and I'll block him. DS 14:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad manners...: I guessed so, but didn't know better. What's the proper way to alert wikispam in future occasions? --tickle me 21:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(oh, and sorry for not responding earlier - I didn't see it, since it wasn't at the bottom!)
Best way to deal with linkspam... well, remove it from articles, mark worthless articles for deletion, and notify me as to the perpetrator's existence. I'll get tough, and if necessary I'll block-and-delete-userpage. Sometimes they actually are educable. I know, I know, it surprised me too, but I have a very polite letter from a reformed linkspammer. DS 11:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carton Tragedy[edit]

Unfortunately, Carton Tragedy isn't really speediable because as it's written it doesn't meet speedy criterion A7. But you can nominate it for regular deletion by following the procedure at WP:AFD. Give the evidence of the Google search and anything else you know to support the AFD nomination. If he removes the AFD notice, he can blocked for vandalism (removing a speedy notice from something that isn't a speedy candidate isn't vandalism). I'll remove the link at Dada and keep an eye on both pages. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that A7 applies? An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles.
The article claims "Carton Tragedy" to be born in 1883 and to have died in 1963. As presumably the real "Carton Tragedy" is a living blogger of our days, this doesn't qualifiy as a "vanity article", it's about a ficticious, non-existing person*. I don't dispute "Carton Tragedy"s importance or significance, I claim that the article's subject obviously doesn't exist. Don't you think this applies:
  • A1 Very short articles providing little or no context.
  • Patent nonsense, so it should be tagged: {{nonsense}}
  • The article's intention is -IMO obviously- to promote his blog - isn't that linkspam? Linkspam doesn't seem to be regulated, but following wikispirit -if there's such a thing- it should be speedied, as we're encouraged to be bold.
* Of course it's a "vanity article" of sorts, but that'd require some meta discussion... I hope I don't bother you being meticulous; you're right: with an AFD I should be on the safe side; but I do fancy indeed the wikilese involved :-) --tickle me 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art(icles)[edit]

Hello. Thanks very much for your input at Portal_talk:Art#Formatting_visual_arts_articles_with_details_on_individual_works, I've taken the discussion a little further, so please respond again to anything you wish to. --bodnotbod 01:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT categories[edit]

Hi, sorry if I came off as extra harsh on Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality - I'm just so done with this discussion and with people (not necessarily you) who come in and make some random comment that distracts everyone for two months that in the end has nothing to do with what's being discussed and serves no useful purpose, and kind of assumed that's what you were doing, since what you were arguing about had already been covered elsewhere (probaby several elsewheres). You also fooled me as far as your not being a native speaker - your command of the language is excellent, certainly on par with anyone else on the English wiki. Anyhow, hope I didn't come across as a jerk and ruin your morning. -Seth Mahoney 00:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you're welcome. As mentioned, some German Wikipedians use the enWiki's categorisations as pretext to denounce politicians they don't like as being Jewish, take this Y. Primakov example. It translates as: Unofficial sources are reported to have identified him repeatedly as being of Jewish descent (Yonah Finkelstein) and having been raised in Georgia. I straightend this somewhat, vandal's or semi-vandal's German is mostly somewhere between clumsy and broken. This is obviously a blatant example of rumour mongering, sometimes they just settle to state someone's Jewish descent without any wikipedic justification. Anyway, when these guys argue that it's OK to do so, as the corresponding enWiki article has the corresponding category set ...it drives me nuts. I can handle them anyway, as we have different standards on deWiki, however, more often than not, categorisation in enWiki is handled mindlessly following the hammer and nail metaphor, however well thought of the rules of application are. So I'm a bit tense too. I'm mostly vandal or POV fighting, if things could be straightened out about the new proposal, it will make thing easier for me.
As for Bearcat, I'm a bit helpless and find it hard to follow his logic: it's as if we don't speak the same language. Besides, don't get me wrong here, there are subtle but deep cultural and political differences between Americans and Europeans. This goes far beyond left or right. Often these differences go unnoticed, but the categorization/Gender/race/sexuality debatte is prone to focus this. It's unthinkable over here. I feel like talking to Earthlings, being a Martian: Interesting, but unsettling.
Here I thought I understod you well, whereas here I'm baffled: I understand the words, even the meaning, but I can't relate to it.
If this is you opionion:
Categories regarding gender and sexuality should only be applied to an article when the person's gender or sexuality had/has a profound influence on their work. The person's gender or sexuality must thus be mentioned (and not just a passing mention) in the article, along with an explanation of the influence it had/has on the person's work. Articles should not be put into these categories if such an explanation is lacking or suspect.
how can this be true (Bearcat):
No, you're talking about two different things. Seth is referring to categories that combine gender/sexuality with occupation into a single category name; you're talking about the application of any gay-related category whatsoever.
  • you're talking about the application of any gay-related category whatsoever.: Indeed I do.
  • Seth is referring to categories that combine gender/sexuality with occupation into a single category name: How does this follow? Your proposal doesn't mention, not even implicitly, combination issues, it's about the application of categories to articles. --tickle me 02:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, the more talk that happens about these sorts of policies the better, so you'll have to pardon me filling up your talk page with this topic, and I'd like to hear what you have to say about the issues involved...
I'm interested, as a side note, in how you perceive the differences between Americans and Europeans, especially as it relates to the sorts of issues discussed here. If you don't mind going on endlessly about them, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
As far as the proposals go, I understood the proposal to primarily be about combined categories, like Category: LGBT writers, and not about, say, Category: LGBT people, even though I didn't explicitely mention that in my proposals. I am, I have to admit, a lot less strict on how Category:LGBT people gets used than the combined categories. As far as Category:LGBT people goes, I'd like this rule to apply: The category gets used only when the person has explicitely declared that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgendered, and only when that is their most recent declaration (to avoid the problem pointed out with, for example, David Bowie on the proposal talk page), and only when the article has at least a paragraph dedicated to their sexuality. I don't think it is necessary for that category to only be used for people whose sexuality has prominently figured in their work, but it should never be used to out people, or for the sake of rumor-mongering. I also think that it would be useful to have a separate proposal for this category and its cousin categories, like Category: Women.
As far as the other categories, like Category:LGBT writers, go, I totally agree with the proposal as it has currently been worked out.
One thing that might help you to understand what's going on on that page is that the proposal partly got started in order to prevent these categories from being systematically listed on the Categories for Deletion page. By proposing strict guidelines as to when the categories should be created, and when they should be used, we hope to first ensure that they hold true to Wikipedia's NPOV standard, and second to be able to strengthen our arguments against claims that these sorts of categories amount to nothing other than pushing a POV.
Another thing that might help you to understand where, at least, I am coming from, is that I created the category Category:Gay writers and all of its cousin categories, because I saw them as a useful way to gather information that is pertinent to several areas of study. Though I'm sure people have started to use them in other ways, my original intention was that they be used in essentially the way described by the current proposal. The main reason for this is not to protect the writers listed in the categories from any sort of slander, but to ensure that the categories remain useful to those people who want to study LGBT literature and LGBT history. -Seth Mahoney 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Genocide Photos[edit]

Hello. I don't know German so I write this message in English. Matter of fact, I've came around Armenianpedia via Wikipedia. I'm an admin in Farsi wikipedia and was researching about the genocide for an article. I checked the genocide photo page on Armenianpedia and found out that this page may have some new photos. I don't know about the copyright. They must be scanned from a book in Farsi and put there in the site. That site has a copyright notice but I'm almost sure that they don't own the copyright to that material (because they have farsi captions and are surely scans).

By the way, I also found out the the english wikipedia doesn't have any entry for Armin T. Wegner. Is it possible to copy the entry on Armenianpedia to english wikipedia?

I can be contacted on english wikipedia, or Farsi Wikipedia.

Hi. The copyright with all Armin T. Wegner photos is with the Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen, Germany. They granted the right of reproduction to armeniapedia.org, see some of their photos here. I'm pretty sure that the photos at ourararat.com are reproduced without permission, they surely belong to the Wallstein Verlag as well. I asked armeniapedia.org's webmaster Raffi for help. So far no result. I'm trying to get some photos released into the public domain, so I can add them to wikimedia.org, thus de.wikipedia (and all other wikis, fa too) can use them. So far, there don't seem to exist freely available photos depicting the Armenian Genocide. Watch my talk page, I'll post the results - I am working on this since october, presumably it'll take quite some time.
As for the Armin T. Wegner article, I took care of that. As soon as I get Raffi's OK I'll copy the article to en:wikipedia.
Thank you very much indeed for your answer. Matter of fact I just checked this page right before seeing your message on my fa talk page. I'm looking forward for public domain photos and Armin T Wegner final article (Though I've added a few facts about him in the page on fa wikipedia). --Shervinafshar 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had to reword Raffi's article: Armin_T._Wegner, feel free to expand. "public domain photos": We'll see about that... --tickle me 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at IHRC[edit]

Hi Tickle me. I notice that you're currently in an edit war with User:86.130.63.21. The reason I contacted you is because of your message on this user's talk page:

86.130.63.21, United Kingdom, Buckinghamshire, Chilton, British Telecommunications: Stop it and argue, else you'll get banned

I fail to see the reason why it's important to mention to the user their ISP and location. I think this borders on incivility. Yes, the user has been quite disruptive, and yes he hasn't communicated, but your message to him sounded too much like an ultimatum bordering on a threat. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all: I traced his IP according to Trace IP and warned him as suggested here. I didn't took the time to care for regulated wording, though. The IP is mantaining an edit war and seemingly cannot be deterred. The measures proposed by WP:VAND seem reasonable too me. I fail to see how his actions amount to a mere content dispute: He refuses to answer arguments and goes on editing issues that are, at the moment, disputed by a majority of users. Thus he is requested to argue first and edit later, when a consensus is reached. His actions amount to vandalism - let's not talk about incivility. --tickle me 11:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:VAND I don't see any mention of specifically telling users where they are from. It's in none of the templates. To me, telling a user where they are from (i.e. ISP and location) amounts to a threat (as in, "I know who you are, I will block you!") Sure, the policy mentions tracing IPs but nothing more (apart from posting a message to a talk page using the Vandalip template). I think these actions are reserved for large scale simple vandalism where a legal threat such as reporting to the ISP would be credible and possible (for cases such as continually spamming pages with obscenities, not fairly low-scale content disputes). Anyway - yes, he is disruptive, but his actions will remain a content dispute as long as he is promoting a certain point of view related to the article content.
Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
His edits can be interpreted as a good-faith effort to give a more balanced view of the problem, as can be seen by his edit summaries (so far, he has not been incivil, but rather highly uncooperative). While I don't agree with him, and have therefore raised the issue at the IHRC article's talk page and his user page, I was just raising a point about the way you approached him. I will be watching the IHRC and related pages closely, and if he makes any more reverts, he should be blocked for not trying to reach consensus on his edits and/or not justifying his edits. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "apart from posting a message to a talk page using the Vandalip template": ...adding the name of the owner, which is a unique identifier with static IPs. The geolocation/provider info makes the edits identifiable with dynamic IPs; else, you can't tell if it's one or more users supporting an edit. Besides, an IPs geolocation info is public anyway - if you post as IP, you make it public for anybody who cares. If you don't like that -fair enough- it's easy to protect your anonymity: register. You're free to do so ...or not.
  • "I think these actions are reserved for large scale simple vandalism": No mention of that interpretation at Trace IP at all, you're free to post on the vandalism talk page to suggest your interpretation.
--tickle me 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist[edit]

Tickle me, I'd love to join, in fact I'd be honored to be in a club of people not benighted by silliness, but I'm apparently missing something (like how to join). I tried to edit the page, but that won't do it. Any help would be appreciated. (I'm still in a learning mode with Wikistuff) Jim62sch 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy [[Category:Rationalist Wikipedians]] to your user page, preferably, but not necessarily to the bottom, that's it. --tickle me 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you pipe your own addition, Tickle? You currently have it on your about me page, which lists you incorrectly on the Cat page.
[[Category:Rationalist Wikipedians|Tickle me]]
Unless you want to be listed as User:Tickle me/about.
KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err... I thought it didn't matter, and "Tickle me/about" was being meant to be my somewhat sub standard user page. But if that leads to misinterpretation, I'll move it, sigh. --tickle me 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you are interested in articles relating to Islam in general and Bat Ye'or in particular. There is now a heated dispute regarding Dhimmi article, and the page is already protected. Much of the dispute concerns admissibility of Bat Ye'or as a source for some recent edits. I would much appreciate if--tickle me 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC) you could provide an independent view on the matter. Regards, Pecher 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might do, but I'm busy on german wiki (related topics), so bear with me. Though: "Fr. S. Griffiths: 'It remains to Bat Ye'or's credit to have raised an important issue that still has not received adequate study' " ...seems reasonable to me. I agree with BY that issues are not dealt with as needed, but her research seems to be flawed, so she might be right for the wrong reasons. About right, that is, as I don't necessarily subscribe to the measures recommended. That said, I don't think her work is needed to substantiate claims that there's a relevant muslim agenda of introducing sharia to the west, much to it's detriment.
As for concepts as sharia or dhimmi, I tend to go the way of least resistance - the muslim guild is well organized, so when I've time for enWiki, I slash out the obvious POV. Check my contribs for the work so far - there was no debatte about the deletions ...too silly. However, here remains work to do, check this: "Some people claim that Muslims who convert to Christianity can be at risk. See any of the works of Ibn Warraq, who claims to be an outspoken former Muslim...". The whole section is a wikipedic joke, and I'm confident that it can be dealt with as with Deletion_of:_Confronted_with_such_arguments and the like. However, the article is protected at the moment, so edits require wikipedic red tape. I'll wait, til it's unprotected again, things don't have to be rushed, Vienna won't fall that soon :-). I recommend to only put in reasonable efforts regarding BY and her positions. Go for the blatant POV wikiland is splattered with all over, correct it and post it on the talk pages, so it doesn't get forgotten.
As for muslim institutions and activists, just dig out their relations to openly anti democratic stances and organisation, you'll always find something substantial. Research is it, that's what I'm doing in DE. It's easy over here, as the federal police and other agencys publish their numerous findings freely. Mostly it's about muslim speeches, preachments and written stuff, that are openly anti constitutional, anti democracy or hate speech, so citing and indicating undisputed sources is often all it needs to make things quite clear.
As for theoretical stuff, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam seems to be an important topic: The four sunni Madhaahib accept the UN Human Rights only in accordance with the sharia, thus turning them upside down regarding relevant issues. That's a focal, a crucial point. Though sunnis and shiites argue on the sharia's interpretation, the Cairo Declaration is quite unambigous (*), undisputed, and -I'll have to check that- influential. I'll start translating the german article de:Kairoer Erklärung der Menschenrechte, hopefully expanding it. Linking islam related articles to it -where it makes sense wikipedically- will help much to put things into perspective, if things go as I expect. My time is limited, fighting POV leaves me no time to care for my wikipedic hobbies - so I do my best to focus my efforts regarding a subject I'd rather ignore...
*Some polemic: It's refreshingly open... --tickle me 01:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add your talk page to my watchlist, so I didn't see your response for some time. Sorry :(
I have done as you said on Sharia, since the page is unprotected now. Maybe, I'll make a good student? :)
Dhimmi is also unprotected, and I am trying to focus mostly on that article. I have added more sources apart from BY and expanded the article; stop by to drop comments, should you have time. You know they will always be appreciated. :))
You're right, BY often goes off the mark; I particularly dislike places where she descends into an opne polemic. But I try to scoop those points that are least likely to be disputed. For dhimmis, these are things like distinctive clothing, rulings of jusrists etc.
As far as Vienna goes, I prefer to fight in the first trench than in the last. Pecher Talk 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Staunchly atheist user OneGuy writes: "The whole section needs to be rewritten". True enough ...and sources, citations and some expansion is missing too - heck, there's always room for home improvement. But he certainly didn't mean it to get lost forever, or did he? --tickle me 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who can tell the minds of other people? But, anyway, if something can be sourced, there is no reason for it not to be in wiki. Pecher Talk 21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some related info:
--tickle me 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have creaed the article on the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. At first, I began to translate the German article, but... My German skills are not as good as I would like them to be... In addition, I have found some things in that article that, while true, are not directly applicable to the text of the declaration, like the division of the sharia-based society into distinct classes or the superiority of Koran and its immunity to human criticism. So, I decided to go it alone. Of course, I would never have been able to write it without the links that you provided, so in terms of relative contribution, this article is more yours than mine. Pecher Talk 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well done, the German version was shoddy indeed, so I replaced it with the translation of your article. Additionaly, I wrote some articles on Adama Dieng and the like on en & de to avoid red links - articles linking to blue ones just have more clout... :-) I'll mail you on behalf of some planning. --tickle me 04:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tours[edit]

thanks for the help in catching the errors you corrected in the article TThe Battle of Tours - I have really been trying to get that article in top shape, and had simply missed some of the things you caught and corrected -- thank you very much for the help. old windy bear 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was charged to publish articles supporting Marxism[edit]

He was never charged of terrorism, he actually talked about the Penal Code he didn't respect during a lecture I was present to. I will check about this and will come up with as soon as possible. Fad (ix) 04:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Ka Pai[edit]

(Te Reo for 'it is good') for the article International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. THANK YOU. Have a good day! --Midnighttonight 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing mediation[edit]

There is an ongoing mediation involving several Islam-related articles. I am sending you this message because you previously edited some of the disputed articles. If you would like to get involved, please do so. --Cyde Weys 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

Given that it comes directly from muslim scripture, I didn't see the need, but I have put the scriptural reference in place. Fixislam 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of other talk pages seems to indicate that leaving the response on the other person's talk page is the predominant method, but thank you. Fixislam 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tickle_me/archive1&oldid=1048640330"