User talk:BrandonYusufToropov/Archivea

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and best wishes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Further proof, as if we needed it, that Klonimus is under the impression he is God

Check out the edit summary [here].

You mean he's not?! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid mubarak

Thank you, dear brother in Islam, and inshallah God will guide me and all of us closer to him. --Striver 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Eid Mubarak

Thank you! It's not been seen here yet, looks like Eid's Tomorrow for us. InshAllah It'll be a great one! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Thanks for your kind words brother , Eid mubarak to you too . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BYT. 4 U 2 -- 81.109.183.177 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

EID MUBARRAK!!! --Khalid! 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy holiday and more

Was Eid yesterday or today? Hope you had/have a nice one. As to the other matter -- I can't keep my temper. It feels to me like a grotesque waste of time and energy to negotiate with the mentally deficient and psychologically impaired. I admit to my defect. Things would go better without my input. Zora 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It would next to useless to write a list, I should think, because the matters under dispute affect the whole of early Islamic history. If a certain set of articles are set aside as "not to be touched without consensus", then that leaves existing or potential biographical articles for hundreds of people out of the reckoning, not to mention all the doctrinal and legal matters, or events, that could be disputed. If the promise were not to edit anything, or create any new articles or templates, without consulting you first, I'd be thrilled. But I don't think that this is what you're being offered. Zora 20:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations for an example of the sort of article we would be giving him a free hand to write. Zora 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Thanks, and Eid Mubarak to you too. - ulayiti (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak to you and your familia. --1Muslim 17:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By george, I think I've got it

Brandon, I think I've figured it out. Striver and Zereshk enjoy conflict, enjoy writing something outrageous (poking me) and seeing how I will react. See the talk page on Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations. I always respond, due to my dogged insistence on trying to make Wikipedia "good" (by my standards). I have to let go of that. I just will not deal with them for a while, and see what happens. It's up to the rest of you to deal with Shi'a bias and Striver's spelling and grammar. I need to step back. I'll see how it goes if I just work on other articles for a while. Zora 07:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Brandon. I've looked at the history, and it's very complicated, so I can't tell right off exactly what is happening. You can report these things on WP:AN/3RR, listing the specific edits you think are reverts. Once you're done, if you let me know (and I'm on Wikipedia), I'll take a look, and block if it's accurate. I hope that helps. Oh, and Eid Mubarak. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Brandon, I had left by the time you posted, and was away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I see someone blocked anyway. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite's RFA

I thought you'd be interested in this RFA. He is a very sensible editor who has gotten support from both sides. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite Yuber^(talk) 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Sorry I was away and could not reply!

A very warm Eid mubarak to you as well. PassionInfinity 06:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I also thank you for your congratulatory note on my page! I greatly appreciate it Ramallite ^(talk) 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Move

I figured that the discusion was not about the Ali article in particular, but about me, so i moved it to where it was appropiate. I let Zora have the final word and gave a link to the follow up. What is the problem? --Striver 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If want to make sure nobody misses it, then by all means, place a "Important: Ongoing talk with Striver on his comment page" on the "Misc and recent (not relating to articles)" part of the guild, but the talk, as it is going now is not related to the Ali article. Im i not correct? --Striver 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I really appreciate to get some acknowledgment for my efforts!

As things are, we happen to have different stance on some very emotional issues, and this is causing some stress between us, and will unavoidably continue to do so in the future. I am determined to show that some un-pleasant facts regarding the first period of Islam to be clearly presented, but the Sunni ideology has the stance of forget and forgive, in contrary to the Shia that makes efforts to remember them.

BUT! Aside from that, we are both:

• Belivers in Tawheed
• Belivers in prophethood
• Belivers in the Quran
• Belivers in justice
• Humans

So, no matter what, you will continue to be my brother in Islam and humanity, and i thank you for your proof of good faith, the Barnstar. It will help me to remember to keep differences in perspective.

Peace, brother!

--Striver 18:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

your attention requested

Please see Talk:Jordan#Blatherskyte. Tomer ^TALK 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

Is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and Slavery Would you care to vote? Thx.--The Brain 10:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem

Glad to help. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Me too! --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a, Striver

The Shi'a-related articles in most need of NPOV help are Shia Islam, Ali, Umar, Hasan ibn Ali, and at the moment, Sahaba. Only the first has a significant crowd of milling newbies. The rest is the usual head-on conflict with Striver and Zereshk. Striver is being particularly difficult. He is trying to collect "evidence" for his RFC against me, so he is inserting contentious edits and then taunting me ("Let's see if she falls for this" in the edit summary -- or "Go on, revert, I need more evidence".)

I'd like to be able to communicate with you without interested parties peering over my shoulder -- could you email me at lofstrom@lava.net, so I'll have your email address? Zora 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Got your email

Got it, but haven't been able to reply -- spent whole day driving an old friend (roommate of 17 years ago) around O'ahu. Will talk later. Thank you so much for the kindness. Zora 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You sent email, I finally sent email -- but I haven't received a reply. Checking mail several times a day, checking spam trap. Typo in address? Your message on my talk page seemed to indicate that a reply had been sent, but none received. Puzzlement. Zora 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

This is not related to our works on WP, but i wanted to share it [1]

Ma salam. --Striver 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

They are trying to reinstate this really offensive article. Can you please take a look? Yuber^(talk) 16:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing parliamentary maneuver results in the reinstatement of this utterly offensive article. I am trying to restore some measure of balance, though of course it should be deleted entirely. BrandonYusufToropov 19:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, you'll need to get consensus to redirect it or delete it. I realise the subject itself is stupid, but it's an article that's been (wrongly or rightly) kept on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the general consensus is to wait for a considerable period of time before relisting on AfD. This might be 4-6 months. I'm only saying this as a general rule of thumb. In the meantime, have you considered putting in material to refute the argument? Trust me, I know what it's like to have an unsavory article you'd like to get rid of. My own personal Waterloo was Christian views of women, which was terrible when I saw it. At the time of listing on VfD (before transclusions) it survived and I never thought it would be any good. Now I see differently. Articles can in fact change for the better, or prove to be a thorn in the side of the original author who held a particular position! Why don't you try to sort out the article? Just a friendly suggestion. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That example hardly works. We have Holocaust denial. The article Islamfascism is quite a long one, seems to discuss the topic in depth. As a Christian, I've been called worse that an Islamofascist - I would not object to some of the terms being listed for an article here. I'd just update it. Please don't tell me I'm complicit, you know that I'm no Islam-basher (though I strongly disagree with it), as I'm sure you saw when we both fought off Pename on Jihad. One last thing: I'm actually suprised that Judeofascism is a redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's solution is a good one. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally I'd take the Judeofascim one to AfD, and not the Islamofascism one. Why? Because the Islamofascism one is being used by idiots quite often, whereas the Jewish epiteth is almost never used. As it currently stands, the Islamofascism article shows the term to be pretty stupid. If someone looks it up on Google, they'll hit our article and come to the same conclusion: the author is a fool. That can only help destroy that authors credibility. I would have thought you'd be positively happy that such stupidity is being refuted! I must say I'm suprised at your reaction here. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. Florida? Must have missed something. As for me legitimising the term - huh? Don't you think you are getting a little personal? And how on earth do you think that the article (in its current form) makes it a legitimate term? Currently it screams "idiot about". - Ta bu shi da yu 14:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummm..

... do you realise that you added your comment on WP:AN/I to a section where I was directly quoting others? Your comment now makes it look like I quoted you from the talk page of Islamofascism. You might want to move it. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

I dont think we are going to get rid of it after Mr Bush have said it. I belive there there is a words for that, auxio...something, when you combine two opposites in one word, like "coldwarm". I guess the best is to keep away all nonsense "See also" links like "Muslims hates jews" and non-sense like that. We also can help out with links like "Islamic democracy" and such.

We could make some article that sumarized how the USA foreign realtions have butchered the middle east, Operation Ajax, helping Saddam to power in the same year as the Islamic revolution, pumping him with weapons against Iran, being allied to Saudi Arabia, even tough most of the 19 alledged hijackers where from there, how they tried to blame the anthrax on Iraq, even if it came from their own labs, the propaganda that made Americans belive it did come from Iraq, how ... never mind.

It just occured to me that it would be dissmised as a conspiracy theory...

--Striver 10:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Message

Query for you at Talk:Judeofascism (term). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Harmony

Brandon, it seems to me that recently the Muslim and Jewish editors (or those perceived to be) have been getting along well, better than I remember it when I first started editing. The resurrection of Judeofascism is going to affect that. You know that this isn't right, and that you won't find any decent sources for it. I understand that you're trying to draw a parallel, but it isn't a fair one. There are too many journalists who have used the term Islamofascism, and now President Bush. The only people you'll find using Judeofascism are likely to be extremist websites that will never be acceptable sources for WP, so all that's going to happen is a hornet's nest of trouble will be stirred up to no avail. Please reconsider what you're doing. There's nothing to stop you putting Islamofascism up again for VfD, or trying to persuade other editors to push for a redirect, but you weaken your own case by engaging in a WP:POINT, and it's not exactly encyclopedic, yet I know that's what you normally strive to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood AfD. There is no such thing as a vote to redirect. If you vote that, you're voting to keep. AfD controls whether a title exists. It doesn't control content. If you want it not to exist as an article, you have to vote to delete the title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it as is, though, pending the discussion there. BrandonYusufToropov 15:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but be careful, because this is what happened before. You and Mel saw the number of redirect comments and misunderstood them. AfD decides whether to keep a title. After that, the normal editing process resumes, because otherwise you'd have AfD controlling content, and nothing is allowed to control content, except our editorial policies. If the title is kept and the editors at that time want to redirect it, it's a redirect. If two weeks later, another bunch of editors wants an article, it becomes an article. So long as people edit within the policies, they can do whatever they want at any time on any page, and prior consensus counts for nothing. The only way to get rid of this is to vote to delete it at AfD. The only way to turn it into a redirect is to persuade the editors on the page, not at AfD, to redirect it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam!

Bro, i feel for you on this one. We both know that "islamofacist" is nonsense, its as stupid as saying "icehot water". But the problem is that Bush and the other warmongering bigot are using it as war time propaganda to attract other bigots... I belive the best way isnt to try to pretend the word dosnt exist, rather, to explain why the word is nonsense... Dont you agree?

Ma salam, your brother in Islam --Striver 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Umm, I'm slightly torn about this issue. I think "Islamofascism" is more notable than Ali Sina, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, Flash (song), and Bloomsdale, Missouri. People know the term (Bush used it in a speech in Korea) and therefore I can't say when we include so many things that Islamofascism in no way deserves its own page. Now, I think in many ways it is a POV fork and is just another way to push an agenda... but, I'm not sure that should dictate how I vote. I do think it needs to be NPOV. I searched the scholarly journals and didn't find it. When I searched Expanded Academic ASAP+ the term shows up in Commentary and the National Review... so, we also know what type of person uses the term. So, we need to NPOV it... but, I'm not sure it doesn't deserve an article. Let's just make sure it doesn't get used for unencyclopedic purposes. gren グレン 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking about my vote and I almost just voted for move to Islam and fascism instead of using a neologism... I'd imagine you don't like that any more but, I figured I'd ask for your thoughts. gren グレン 02:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed

Bigotry, Hate speech, and Systemic bias are all things that aren't too good. However, being that Islamofascism is a word that is widely used today, my position on this article is that it should be kept and we should discuss exactly who uses the term, why they use the term and when the term is used.

I appreciate that you know I don't support the use of such a term. However, imagine you are an ordinary Australian who knows nothing about Islam and all of a sudden you are confronted with such a term in The Daily Telegraph. You think to yourself, "I wonder what this is all about?". The average Australian would normally go to Google and do a search on it.

What do you want them to find? A conservative blogger who pushes their illegitimate POV in a convincing way (and doesn't point out the counter argument for why it isn't a valid term), or the piece on Wikipedia that details, in a neutral fashion, all sides of the argument?

Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Your posts

Brandon, your posts to Ta bu are becoming disruptive. All he did was unprotect a page that arguably shouldn't been protected in the first place. That's a routine admin action, and it doesn't imply agreement or disagreement over the issue. He's a good admin and editor, and shouldn't be harassed any further about the matter. I'm sorry to write to you like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Folks, it's cool. Brandon, I only ask that you be careful to not make a personal attack about me. I know the article is stressful for you (I had my own waterloo with Gay Nigger Association of America). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers

You know, I know your reasoning behind wanting to redirect the page. Really I do. I just disagre with that reasoning, because I feel that it's a significant enough article to merit it's own article.

Anyway, to respond:

• I don't have any problem with people being able to track down a good, solid, neutral discussion of this term.
  • I know this!
• I fail to see why that means it merits an article of its own.
  • I have answered this already, but I feel that it is too long to include in an umbrella article, and it will unbalance the page.
• As Chip Berlet has pointed out, there are hundreds of instances in other encyclopedias where subreferences point people to sections within articles.
  • Indeed. However, we are unique in many ways. We have umbrella articles which briefly summarise the main point of a topic, and they use {{main}} to point to a large article. It works quite well (I've used it on MDAC and Windows 2000, both FAs)
• One good reason to point people to sections within larger articles is the stark factual inaccuracy of the heading the article would have to employ. There is no Islamist anywhere who promotes the actual political doctrine of fascism.
  • Indeed, I don't disagree with you. However we are detailing a neologism and how it is used. A title does not make us take a position. If that was the case, then I would leave the project because of the article Childlove movement.
• That means "fascist" in this case is serving the function of an insult quite consciously chosen for its ability to polarize and distract domestic political constituences.
  • I agree that this is the main reason for the term. This is the same with Christian fascism. This doesn't mean we can't document it.
• Which brings me to another good reason to point people to sections within larger articles -- namely a certain moral responsibility among admins with functioning brains to prevent WP from becoming the #$%^&*() Newspeak dictionary, which is clearly the intent here.
  • You are wrong. I am not here to censor anyone's content. I have no moral authority or responsibility to take a position on an article based on its content. If that were the case, I would have immediately killed off the following pages:
    • Holocaust denial
    • Gnosticism and the New Testament
    • Childlove movement
    • Historical persecution by Christians

Do you see the slippery slope I would be going down?

• Where is the stand-alone article for Blow job?
  • If you can find enough information on this topic to warrant its own article, be my guest! Currently as it stands it's a slang term for oral sex and it's more than appropriate to incorporate it into this article. However, I'd encourage anyone who did proper research to a) redirect it to fellatio, and b) add their sourced material to it.
• ...Zionazi
  • Same deal. If you can find enough information, go ahead and expand the article. Before it was redirected, the article stated:
    • Zionazi: A word invented by those who hate Jews and wish to express their ultimate hatred of them by insinuating a connection with those who perpetrated genocidal mass murder upon the Jews. Most often used by those who are themselves admirers of Hitler.

As you know, that is original research. If voted for on AfD it would most likely be deleted. However, while we have no sources then it has been redirected. I encourage you to kill off the redirect and document the term correctly. Again, it's a particularly stupid term but if you can tell us who says it, why they say it, when they have said it, and where they have said it then this would be a valuable addition to our site. Of course, it would also be highly controversial. However, this is pretty much par for the course on Wikipedia.

• Fifth Column.
  • You've made a mistake here. See Fifth column.
• Do you seriously maintain that these terms are not notable, or that they are incapable of being adequately discussed within the articles to which they are redirected?
  • Nope.
• So what's the difference between those terms and Islamofascism? I'll tell you what the difference is. The necons want this term front and center. So they go knocking on doors until they find someone who actually thinks he's acting responsibly by bending over for them.
  • It's a zionist conspiracy I tell you! They've gotten to me. Quick, bring out the deprogrammers!
• Bad call, Ta bu. Seriously bad call. And the fact that someone like you made it is considerably more disturbing than the fact that they went knocking on the doors in the first place.
  • Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Salaam

Shukran Jazzerah with regards to the voting on the Islamofascism. Marzyeh 05:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

I've unprotected that page. Do you think an intervention of the sort from this page might be good? Read Archive 1, somewhere in the middle to see how it might be helpful. Let me know what you think :-) --HappyCamper 13:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I might come back and check the page again. How do you feel the disucussion on that page is proceeding? --HappyCamper 13:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, take your fanatical fundamentalism somewhere else "Yusuf". --Chaosfeary 13:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Chaosfeary is most definitely Enviroknot. I will try to get some people to look at his account soon.Yuber^(talk) 16:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hate speech

Hate speech is a terrible thing, but it's not Wikipedia's role to suppress it. Rather, if it is encyclopedic, it is Wikipedia's role to examine it dispassionately. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see anything wrong with the term zionazi on WP. I realise that I'm slightly on the inclusionist side of things, but what the hey. Borisblue 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism vs. Zionazism

You ask a good question which I don't really have a good answer to. But basically, I'm not going to change my vote for Islamofascism, and if Zionazism is ever written and subsequently put up for AfD then I'll consider that when it happens. I can't really change my decision on an actual article based on what I would do with a hypothetical article. If Zionazism was sourced, well-written and as NPOV as it could be, I'd probably vote to keep it as well. --Last Malthusian 14:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term)

What exactly are you trying to do? - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a complicated discussion, and it's common to make some refactoring to better sort out the arguments. My edit summaries did make that pretty clear, and I'm a bit confused as to why you want the talk page kept blank? - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

When I screw up, which is pretty regularly, I own up to it

[[2]]

I also use one username, and only one username, to make my points, and I stand behind my edit history. BrandonYusufToropov 16:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That edit only appeared after I brought your/Yuber's recent actions to the attention of administrators, and from your very insulting insults/remarks/personal attacks it's extremely unlikely you mean it...

I would also like to add that I got blocked for a while simply for making one personal attack in reply to one of your false allegations - You have escaped any kind of punishment... --Chaosfeary 16:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally -- actual conversational content. The diff in on the incidents board made it look (to the hasty viewer) like you had posted this content, as did the fact that the admin in question immediately blocked out his address. I read it too quickly, and I drew a wrong conclusion. I'm sorry. You can think I'm not sorry if you want, but that's your business.

May I ask you precisely what you were accusing me of with [this edit] to my talk page? BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I recently had this posted on my talk page, which I thought you might want to be aware of. --HappyCamper 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Salam

Care to vote?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American terrorism --Striver 13:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary checkuser

Well, Jayjg wasn't just talking about IP addresses, he said that based on the difference in IPs it seemed unlikely that Chaosfeary could be the same person as Enviroknot. I presume this means that the IPs are in different countries, or something. Do you have a link to where Jay said the edit summaries were "suggestive"? Babajobu 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do. [[3]]. My post to User:HappyCamper is manifestly relevant to the discussion, and I plan to replace it. I'd like your opinion on whether the user who removed it is entitled to do so. BrandonYusufToropov 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know...I wasn't happy to see that he'd moved it. I certainly wouldn't have, and I think he's incorrect to say that your comments there amounted to a personal attack. The thing is article talk pages probably aren't the right place to discuss evidence that someone is a sockpuppet, but I'm not even sure about that. You should ask an admin. Babajobu 13:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat relevant to the discussion, but I just don't know that sockpuppet hunting is appropriate for talkpages, especially when one of the few Wikipedians with checkuser rights has already stated that the user in question does not appear to be a sockpuppet. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't know, and that this seems to me a bit of a gray area. I, too, would be interested in hearing what an admin had to say. Babajobu 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on Chaosfeary's talk page, though, asking him to take it easier with this stuff, and telling him I didn't think it was a good idea to remove your comments from the "Islamofascism" talkpage or to tinker with your talkpage. Babajobu 13:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that will yield any change in behavior, Baba. BrandonYusufToropov 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we will see. He and I are both members of the SIIEG cabal, so maybe he'll listen to me! ;-) Babajobu 14:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Request to any admin, anywhere, for feedback

Note to any admin, anywhere -- User:Chaosfeary has deleted this from Talk:Islamofascism, claiming it to be a "personal attack. and I believe it to be relevant to the conversation there. Please advise.]]

Actually, if you take a look at what Jayjg actually posted, he is talking about IP addresses. I'm talking about individuals.

I point out for consideration that, pretty much the instant Chaosfeary was banned from editing Islamofascism (term), a new User:FluffyPinkKittensOfDoom materialized. (As in no edits before Chaosfeary's 3RR violation.) Please work your way through the diff sequence that begins [here] and you will see that Fluffy apparently has a long-running hatred of me.

What it boils down to is whether or not one can recognize someone who is using distinctive (and, I might add, distinctively obscene) language and a specific M.O. to sabotage articles here. I believe one can, and that the fact that someone is capable of switching IP addresses doesn't change that.

Jayjg, whose judgment I trust, also pointed out that the edit histories were "suggestive," [[4]] though why that assessment hasn't been as widely circulated is not clear to me. Anyway, for a taste of this renegade's cooking, look up User:Enviroknot BrandonYusufToropov 14:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The original message said "this is to User:HappyCamper", see Talk:Islamofascism (term) history. I also said to post it on User:HappyCamper's talk page instead, as it was a personal message. Please don't try and twist actual events to suit you, Yuber, as usual... --Chaosfeary 13:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, please stop accusing Chaosfeary of being Enviroknot, because it's causing deteriorating relations and a bad editing atmosphere. The technical evidence strongly suggests they're not the same person, and even without that, the writing style is markedly different. That's a separate issue, of course, as to whether Chaosfeary is editing in good faith. As for User:FluffyPinkKittensOfDoom, it's almost certainly someone's sockpuppet, and is likely to be blocked again if it tries to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK, Slim. No joke: If you think it will help matters, I will stop.

• A couple of issues, though. First, are you aware that the user in question is removing MY comments from MY talk page? [[5]]

• Second -- does User:FluffyPinkKittensOfDoom's appearance immediately after the user in question's banning for 3RR seem at all suspicious to you? If so, what action do you think we should take? BrandonYusufToropov 13:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, what, specifically, do you make of the diff sequence that begins [here]? What does it suggest to you? BrandonYusufToropov 13:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is you're amazingly paranoid. --Chaosfeary 18:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you're both making the behavior of the other worse, so there's a dynamic that needs to stop. One of you needs to take the high ground, in other words. I agree that FluffyPink is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and is likely to be blocked if any more edits are made. The difficulty with assuming this is a particular user is that the other "side" has also used at least one open proxy, and where that's happening nothing can be trusted: for example, someone may be setting Chaosfeary up here. This is why admins looking at this situation are inclined to hand out blocks to both sides or neither, and that may seem very unfair to the individuals involved who know they've done nothing wrong, but you see the difficulty. My strong advice to you is stop deleting posts from your talk page (because it's making you look bad), don't make any more public accusations of sock puppetry on article talk pages and that includes not using attack headers, don't respond to personal attacks or snide remarks, concentrate on content only, edit within the policies, and go back to being the old Brandon people knew and had come to respect. In the meantime, I and others will keep a close eye on the situation and whoever continues to cause trouble will be dealt with in due course. These things have a tendency to work themselves out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You say on the one hand that a non-sockpuppet would look quizzically or ignore sockpuppet allegations, but at the same time you request a check to show that you're not Yuber. No one who knows your editing believes you are Yuber, but I can request a check if you want. Similarly, no one looking at the writing of Chaosfeary and EnviroKainKabong would imagine them to be the same person (look at it closely: it really is very different for reasons I don't want to spell out in public), and we've done the technical check which supports the view that they're different people.

What is your concrete suggestion for progress in this matter? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've requested a user check, and I've already asked Chaosfeary to stop making the allegation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov are obviously not the same person, and the technical evidence confirms that. While there is no technical evidence linking Chaosfeary to Enviroknot or the open proxies, and while it is extremely unlikely that Chaosfeary is Enviroknot, it is quite obvious that FluffyPinkKittensofDoom is a revert sock related to those open proxies, most likely of Chaosfeary. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone experienced in the use of open proxies is using those proxies as strawmen sockpuppets to implicate Chaosfeary. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Brandon. I don't believe for a second that you have used any sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Amazing the amount of collusion between you, User:SlimVirgin and Yusef... Of course this buddy-buddy attitude and obvious bias pretty much makes any claim from either that Brandon is not a sockpuppet unreliable. --Chaosfeary 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: American terrorism

Sure, I'll hang around for a while. It wouldn't hurt, and I don't have much else to do these days. Johnleemk | Talk 14:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained on the talk page why I do not think the article should be at American terrorism without consensual agreement from other editors. The AFD debate had no consensus to do anything, which makes it default to keeping the article. However, it does not mean another editor can't redirect the article to something else. Once the article is kept, the AFD is generally ignored for all intents and purposes unless someone wants to outright delete the article/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already explained why you will have to work out this dispute with other editors and not run to me for help. The AFD is not suitable enough to be cited to back up your stance of keeping the article at American terrorism. If the other people moving the article really are vandals, they should be blocked. You have not given a reason why the article should be at American terrorism, and you have not tried to work out the dispute with the other editors (as far as I know). Please do so before requesting a page protection. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"American terrorism" is documented and cited as a widely used term. There was no consensus to delete, rename, or redirect that article. It is against Wikipedia policy to make up neologisms like Terrorism by United States of America. It is also against Wikipedia policy to delete, rename, and redirect articles without consensus. I will not give my "cooperation" to people who are violating Wikipedia policy. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What he said. BrandonYusufToropov 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Kike article

Wikipedia should certainly report on the term, including its origins, etymology, usage, etc. I'm not sure there's enough information to warrant more than its current entry in List of ethnic slurs, but if it outgrows that article then it certainly deserves a standalone article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

BYT, I'm in agreement with Jay and others, per the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamofascism (term)... I've taken most of the text out of List of ethnic slurs, and combined it with previous versions of the Kike article. I'll be consulting the Raghead and Nigger articles as I try to forge ahead with writing a decent article, and would welcome any assistance you have time to offer. Tomer^TALK 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Kaffir article as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Be warned that I am now trying to carve up and rename the various senses of Kaffir/Kafir, which are all mixed up now. Look for a disamb coming up...
Jorge Stolfi 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I hurt my back and neck pretty badly on monday, so I've gotta lie down for a while. I'm done futzing around with kike for now, so have at it. Baba may be stopping by as well... Tomer^TALK 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you feel better soon. When you are feeling better, you might want to look at redneck, white cracker, queer, faggot, Kraut, and chav as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Chaosfeary

Greetings. It appears that we are both being terrorized by the same person. Perhaps we could work together to curb his vandalism.

I placed this on Chausfeary's user talk page.

=== RfC === Chaosfeary, I have asked you before on several talk pages and I will ask you here again. Please stop vandalizing articles and user talk pages. Regardless of how frustrated you become at the world not adopting your views, Wikipedia must be a consensus of ideas in order to work. Please start working with other editors. Do not deface their talk pages.[6] Do not delete, rename, or redirect articles without conseneus.[7] Do not deface and blank articles and picture summaries.[8] If you continue your vandalism, you will leave me no choice but add an RfC in regard to your actions. --Peter McConaughey 16:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since then, he has continued vandalizing articles and has broken the 3RR at Image:Illpublish.png. I have never had to take action against another editor and would much rather spend my time in a constructive manner, but I believe that User:Chaosfeary's agressive POV must be curbed in order for constructive editing to progress in many articles. Could we work together to accomplish this? I am working on a RFC and would greatly appreciate someone helping me with the 3RR part of it by submitting a 3RR regarding the Image:Illpublish.png edit history. Thank you. --Peter McConaughey 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation with Carbonite

If Carbonite accepts mediation, I will mediate for the two of you. I'll let you know when he decides. --Improv 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, I think you have some serious explaining to do. Please comment on Improv's talk page. Carbonite | Talk 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, I don't understand which specific ways Carbonite has abused his admin powers; could you possibly explain?[9] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite seemed a bit high-handed in his support for User:Chaosfeary's hijacking of the "American terrorism" article. Chaosfeary renamed the article to a term that he made up without any consensus to do so. Carbonite backed him up on it. The focus of the new article was changed. "American terrorism" was protected as a redirect. This had the same effect as deleting the article on "American terrorism." All of this happened immediately after Carbonite's AfD for the article failed. --Peter McConaughey 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I backed Chaosfeary up only to the extent that I asked you not to use a cut-and-paste restore of the old article, because without proper attribution of edits, this would be a violation of the GFDL. As far as the redirect is concerned, I actually expressed concern about it. [10] The redirect was protected, but not by me. [11] Also, although I did nominate the article for deletion, an AfD does not belong to one user. Although there was not quite consensus for outright deletion, a majority of the voters did favor it.

Still, the question that Jayjg posed to Brandon was "...which specific ways Carbonite has abused his admin powers?" The answer is that I didn't even use admin powers, and Brandon has apologized for making that accusation. As far as I'm concerned, the article is in infinitely better shape now and I'm really not interested in waging a war over its title. So, I'm bowing out of any further discussion or actions on the title of this article. Carbonite | Talk 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, I'm requesting that you cease framing the issue of the article's title as a dispute with me. As I've explained numerous times, I didn't move the article, protect the redirect or endorse the move. Other than presenting my opinion on the content of the article, my only other action was to ask Peter to stop using a cut-and-paste restore of the old article, as that would be a GFDL violation. I don't appreaciate that you've posted comments all over talk pages stating that you have issues with me or implying that I've done something improper. Please be advised that if this behavior continues, I will pursue a user conduct RfC. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, there doesn't appear to be any abuse of admin powers here. It looks to me like your real beef is with other editors, so I would suggest focussing on their actions, or even better on the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

OK -- I will. Thank you for taking a look at this, Jay. User:Carbonite, I apologize again for implying you were abusing admin powers when this was not the case. BrandonYusufToropov 23:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Back

I moved it back to American Terrorism. If there is actually a consensus to move it I'll respect it, obviously, but demanding consensus to move it back despite no consensus to move it in the first place is stupid and wrong, so it's back. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't fix that because User:MarkGallagher protected the page, only an admin can do it. Its starightfoward enough to do. when you type in a name that acts as a Re-Direct, say Terrorism by United States of America you will notice that on the top of the page it will say "(Redirected from Terrorism by United States of America)" at the top of the page. Click on this Blue-Link and it will bring you to the page and from here you can edit the redirect and change it if you want to. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you're going to have to apply to be an administrator. --Peter McConaughey 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, no. That's not how moves work. Simply swapping redirs and copying the content across to a different page is called a cut and paste move, and it's a right royal pain in the neck, not to mention quite possibly a violation of the GFDL. Once an article exists at the title you want, you will need administrator help — not because some rogue bastard protected the page, but because only administrators can delete the page to allow the article to be moved back. Like I said, if y'all can agree on a page title, I will be happy to assist in a move for you myself, even back to the original American terrorism. You can also apply at Wikipedia:Requested moves, although they'll be asking you to show agreement with a particular title too.

I notice the article's been moved again, to American Terrorism and then later to the completely stupid American Terror. Notwithstanding the MoS, there's only two people in this world allowed to say "terror" instead of "terrorism", and that's George W. Bush and Sandra Sully, because neither of them can pronounce the correct word. Why was the page moved again? It'll only muddy the waters and increase the division between you three and those who want it at Terrorism by the United States or whatever it was. Was it an attempt to get an article title closer to the original American terrorism, or what? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your requests on my talkpage

G'day Brandon,

I've changed the redirect at American terrorism, to avoid double redirects. That's Request #1.

For Request #2, I don't intend to take a stance on whether the page should be at the original American terrorism or the new USA thing. To take up a position and then use these shiny extra buttons to defend it would be an abuse of my status as an admin, something I've pledged to do only on rare occasions. I can get involved, attempt to mediate, or something, if you'd like, but it would be inappropriate for me — or any of the other admins discussing the issue — to decide which title is more appropriate and use our powers to enforce that.

I can say that the latest round of moves is Very Very Silly, and not at all in the best interests of reaching some semblance of consensus. I won't be undoing them (see above), but I'd like to express my fondest hopes that all people involved in this dispute can refrain from being silly until after it's resolved. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is going to de-op you for changing this article back to how it was before it got hijacked. Have another Fosters on me and just do what you know is right. --Peter McConaughey 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When did I say I was worried about being de-opped? I'd like to avoid abusing my admin powers because not to do so would be wrong, not because I'm worried about disciplinary action. And I don't drink Fosters; it's a silly beer, fit only for export. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being too restrictive on "American terror"

By any definition of terrorist, George Washington was one. I'm simply pointing this out. The term "American terrorism" is very controversial and most people don't seem to understand that this country is rooted in terrorism. --Cyde 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. Article, though, is about contemporary use of the term. BrandonYusufToropov 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified that the article is talking about the "contemporary usage" of the term. Do we need a "Historical American terrorism" article now? Because you can put a lot more than just the initial rebellion in there. --Cyde 19:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel like starting such an article, WP:Be bold and see what happens. This one's about contemporary usage of the term "American terrorism." BrandonYusufToropov 19:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How was George Washington a terrorist? He never fought battles in enemy territory, so far as I know...he led basically traditional military attacks on opposing militaries, did he not? Doesn't really matter anyway, of course, if he has been described as a terrorist then Wikipedia could cover the topic, but the contention that "By any definition of terrorist, George Washington was one" seems pretty far-fetched. Babajobu 13:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How can we say that anyone is a terrorist when we don't know what one is? --Peter McConaughey 15:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors report how a term is used. As far as I can tell, "American terrorism" has never been used to describe George Washington. In every country but the United Kingdom/States, terrorism refers to the creation of terror, either through "a system of coercive intimidation" or by trying "to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm" (OED). American terrorism is simply the creation of terror by the United States of America (through "a system of coercive intimidation" or by trying "to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm" in its own people). Ask pretty much any person outside of the United Kingdom/States, and they'll explain something closely along those lines as the definition of "American terrorism." --Peter McConaughey 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm"...hmm...so would a public service announcement warning of the dangers of driving drunk be a form of terrorism? Babajobu 02:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Would such a public service announcement make you terrified? --Peter McConaughey 03:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The intention is certainly to alarm viewers at the dangers of drunk driving and prompt them to change their behavior. Seems to fit the def. Babajobu 03:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

From your description, it sounds like drunk driving commercials might fit a definition of attempted alarmism, but even that might be a stretch. --Peter McConaughey 03:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, targeting civilians for violent, highly visible death still seems like a winning definition, even if outside the Anglosphere they equate "terrorism" with "scaring someone".

• What is perhaps stressing us (and, I might add, much of the rest of the world), is that the term "terrorism," as a practical matter, currently falls into the "I know it when I see it" category for many American policymakers. And we are all apparently destined to live out the consequences of that fuzzy thinking.
• Me, personally, I'm comfortable with something along the line of "targeting civilians to achieve a political aim," but let's be realistic: "terrorism" is slowly morphing into a meaning that reads roughly as follows: "Those who oppose us." This is dangerous in my view.
• People can give Chomsky flack if they want, but at least he's focusing on comprehensible definitions.
• I've heard the entire insurgency in Iraq described by supposedly reputable sources as "the terrorists," which suggests a) that the insurgency is more uniform in purpose and method than it actually is, b) that American military targets are somehow the victims of terrorism, a suggestion I can't quite fathom, and, perhaps most important, c) that the Pentagon and the neocons, who are quite fond of this "we're at war with the terrorists" formulation, are eager to conceal information, rather than examine it.
• My whole problem with the so-called "war on terror" was summed up pretty well by Mr. Brzezinski, who pointed out in an interview not long ago that declaring a war on "terror" was a little like declaring a war on "blitzkrieg" or "marine invasion" or something: you're declaring a war on the tactic, not on any actual entity. Now why are we choosing to do that? I think it has something to do with the fact that unlike Brzezinski, the American public has a very emotionally loaded definition of "terrorist" that basically equates to "Those evil extremists who were behind 9/11." This understanding is being exploited, in my view, for short-term economic and strategic interests, in a way that is, frankly, suicidal for the western alliance.
• I don't know what the hell George Washington has to do with any of this. He did say something about avoiding debilitating entanglements with foreign powers, though, and every time I read that advice, I think he's talking about Israel.BYT 14:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Coffee and apologies most gratefully received — the first necessary, the second not — and very glad things are back to normal. Thank you for the encouragement and support. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Brandon, it's cool mate :) You should have seen how upset I got over the GNAA page :( I totally understand that when things get heated it's sometimes hard to get perspective! I don't hold anything against you (and I never have! You are a great editor), I just took a step back when things got a bit heated between you and me :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

THanks for the heads up on clarifying my vote on Islamofascism. Marzyeh 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary

Yes, this [12] is definitely worthy of admin action. It's a shame I didn't know about it an hour ago (I didn't see how recent it was), or I'd have blocked him for disruption/vandalism, but he has just started reverting me on Jeremy Clarkson, which I'm trying to clean up, and one of his reverts had the edit summary: " ... I have no reason to respect SlimVirgin, someone who bans anyone who criticises her friends yet ignores abuse by them... (see nr bottom Talk:Islamofascism#Discussion)" [13] That was 20 minutes ago, so if I were to block him now, it would look vindictive. Can you try Mel, El C, or Jay? I believe I saw El C on earlier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary

Noticed your note; Chaosfeary has been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism/WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Salam!

Hi! I created a new template, and would appreciate a coment from you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#Template:Muslim_conflicts.

Ma salam! --Striver 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bro if you want to E-mail me, use this: Special:Emailuser/Striver and drop me a message. --Striver 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Beyond mere christianity.PNG

Information re the copyright status and source of the image that you uploaded here is needed. -- Karl Meier 11:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

See my response to your Object, Thanks. Scifiintel 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC) I responded again, thanks. Scifiintel 22:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Please rereview Jesus if you can get a chance, I addressed a lot of the issues. Thanks. Scifiintel 05:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) and I think I reresponded, im a little confused cause if you did respond after me I don't currently see it. Scifiintel 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I responded again. Perhaps you could add those sources to the historicity section. Scifiintel 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor on Mahdi and various hadith articles

Hello Brandon,

someone has pointed out to me that an anonymous editor has been making repeated edits to a number of articles including Gog and Magog, Mahdi, and the articles on various hadith, mostly it would appear those where there is a divergence of opinion between Shia and Sunni scholars. He has not cited sources for most of his edits, and I amn't well enough informed on these issues to tell whether they are accurate or not. I wonder would you be able to take a look at his contributions? Thanks, Palmiro | Talk 14:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah this name's a blessing. Kidding of course... ;-) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary

Would you care to comment here about what we should do if Prince Charming continues to cause trouble? My own view is that he should be blocked indefinitely without going through dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Salam

Done! Thx for the information. --Striver 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism move

I'm not sure what should be done here - the two sides seem pretty evenly split. Maybe a wider RfC would be in order. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that the article was originally at Islamofascism, and was apparently moved to Islamofascism (term) without consensus. In addition, the title itself does not follow Wikipedia convention. I'm not aware of any other articles that have the word "(term)" appended, including (as has been pointed out on my page) many other terms people find offensive, such as Zionist Occupation Government. As there was no consensus to move it to Islamofascism (term) in the first place, it probably should be restored to its original name, but given that you find that option extremely unpalatable, I suggested a wider RfC. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, while I've responded to your questions and given my opinions regarding this situation, I'm not the admin handling it. Please feel free to involve another admin. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit

The president is obviously a puppet that has a screw loose, i mean... dah.... Puppet... I smelled something fishy with him the moment he becam "president", he imediatly started to do statments as stupid as Bush did. What does Bush need? Que bono? Operation Ajax. --Striver 14:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just way off the charts. Very important that Muslims condemn this sort of thing, IMHO. BYT 14:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wtf is he thinking...nobody knows....I just dont wanna see US troops in Iran . 10 years of Iran were wasted in dealing with Saddam (Puppet) , another 10 in basic infrastructure & other stuff ,it was time to make economy , not statments . Farhansher 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Emailed you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

KaDee Strickland

Just wanted to commend you on the fine edits to this "featured" article. You've made great strides towards making it non-POV. I particularly enjoy your edit comments...they're cracking me up! Kudos to you, sir! --MisterHand 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Kudos doubled. I just wish we could cut down the article even more. It spends paragraph after paragraph providing information that should be summarized in a sentence. These quotes are not relevant or important in any way. We don't spend this much time and detail on politician and president entries, I hardly see why Kadee Strickland needs an entry with that kind of probing information - reads like an FBI profile. It is seriously wrong to select it as an example for other actor articles. Vulturell 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI

[14] --Striver 04:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Article title suffixes - (term)

The only article which has that suffix is "Islamofascism (title)". "American terrorism" is a bad example for two reasons; first, it was created as a WP:POINT in reaction to the Islamofascism article, and second, the only reason it has "(term)" in the title is because you moved it to that name on December 2, after people objected to the "Islamofascism (term)" title on the grounds that it was unique and did not follow convention. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Salam

BYT, im writing to you since i know that you are sincer.

We belong to different denominations of Islam, but i trust that it should not be a problem when we both are dedicated to sincer and truthfull. I feel unsecure now that im trying to contact a non-Shi'a in this issue, but things are never going to be better unless we try to comunicate. This is a plea to try to cooperate.

As is now, its me vs Zora. I dont like her methods, and for some reason, people seem to belive her method of not giving sources and acussing me with sweeping and non-specific allegations of being biased to be more credible than my methods of giving sources.

So, i want to try something new. I want to start a cooperation with you. I belive it is much easier to explain to you my stance and i belive that you could see the valid points that i make, something i perceive Zora incapable of. Are you intrested?

What talks against is that we have diamtrical different views of key issues. What talks for it is that we are in a medium that is not concerned with truth, rather with presenting verifiable sources.

I would like you to take a look at the Ali talk page as is, and give me your first impresion, so that we can continue to have a dialog about it, and eventualy reach to something we both can agree on.

I perceive Zora as a person that is incapable of seeing outside her "box", and also as a person that is not intrested with the views of other people. I have seen her take part of evidence for something, only to make a statement that totaly contradicts the evidence she just took part of. I perceive her as a person that is not sincer and impossible to cooperate with.

As is now, its Shi'a vs Sunni and Zora.

The Shi'a, me and Zereshk are active, while the Sunni, you and the other guys are hardly participiate anymore. Zereshk is batteling Zora in the Iranian artricles, while i go against her in the Islamic article.

So that leaves Me vs Zora in the Islamic articles. Problem is, that i get the feeling that you other guys feel that the only way to hold me in "check" is to give Zora support, no matter if she is acctualy right or wrong. Im tired of that. This is counterproductive, specialy since i perceive Zora as unreasonable.

I want get ridd of the "middle woman" and talk to you directly, This is my atempt to start a cooperation between us two. Are you interested? --Striver 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish-Arab conflict

Have you seen this spectacular piece of idiocy? It is rightfully up for deletion here, yet most people seem to want to keep it. Mind-boggling. This sort of thing makes me despair of Wikipedia. Palmiro | Talk 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Hey, BYT. I applaud your efforts with the KaDee Strickland article. If you haven't thought about it already, perhaps you could get involved at Featured Article Candidates. I think hard-nosed reviewers could do some of the candidates some good. And I say this as someone who plans to nominate one of my own pieces very soon. Do be careful with some of your language, though (mainly your sarcasm with Extraordinary Machine). It doesn't bother me any, but the civility police are on the prowl, driving away good users as we speak. Just a thought. — BrianSmithson 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

BYT, I was wondering if you could consult Wikipedia:Footnotes. This is because when you inserted external links into the KaDee Strickland article, for some reason it messes up the numbering of the inline footnotes so that they don't match the numbered notes at the bottom of the article, if you understand what I mean (if you don't, feel free to drop me a note on the talk page). A user at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/KaDee Strickland expressed concerns over this the last time. Anyway, please just read the page over, and if you're still not sure how to do it, just ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Grand Canyon FA Nomination

I formatted the photos to the way they are and spent hours on it. (After I descovered how to add pics I deicded to perfect my skills by perfecting an article picture wise.) The pictures, and the way they are layed out is the main reason for this nomination. I think that this is as good as wikipedia picture work and layout gets. The only way we could fix red links are to write more articles. Those don't concern the article nominated, so I don't think they are relavent. Yet, if the links should not be there then it may be a valid point. The Canyon doesn't engage in activities. The people in the Canyon do. If you want you could change the section heading to something like "Tourist acivites" or "Visitor activities" but I think it's fine how it is. Tobyk777 02:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Suffixes

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you be more specific? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Admin

No I am not yet. Recently, I've had a narrow focus so I'm not sure if the nomination would succede anyway. Thanks for the thoughts though. I should find myself wandering back to Islam related articles in a little--Tznkai 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I recall telling user:Kim Bruning that he could do it. He's on vacation now, so we'll wait for him. The last time it was tried, Kim got all irritated at me for not letting him nominate me when he wanted to ^_^; --Tznkai 16:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Talked it over with him, and he seems not to care over much, but I think I'm going to go ahead and do this one on my own, I feel better about it that way.--Tznkai 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. It took a while, but you helped nudge me into it. Kim had me go to Mindspillage and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tznkai 2 was born. Thanks for encouraging me!--Tznkai 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for replying.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas

As far as I know, it is still scheduled for the Main Page on 25 December (look in the December 2005 WP:TFA schedule here) and the WP:FARC listing has no consensus to remove (it looks about 50:50 keep:remove to me). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misled by the recent flurry of "keep" votes - you are right: it is running at about 2:1 to remove, give or take.

As for finalising the vote, the article remains on FARC for two weeks, after which the nomination is archived. There is usually a clear consensus on FARC to keep or remove featured status (see the votes on Peer review and Paradox, for example). In this case, there is clearly a substantial body of opinion to keep it as a featured article. Jeffrey O. Gustafson has been doing most of the archiving recently, so it may be worth asking his opinion on whether 2:1 amounts to consensus - a look at recent archived discussions may be illustrative. If you are asking for my view, I would not see 2:1 as consensus to remove, but I won't be taking the decision in this case. In any event, the point is worth raising on the FARC talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are currently twice as many people who have said that it should be defeatured as have said it should not, but that is not consensus. Re the main page, the best I can do is suggest you take it up directly with Raul654. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Like ALoan has said, 2 to 1 is not consensus. However, featured content does not always work by consensus. For instance, Raul can deny featured status to an article if it has just one objection among a sea of supports, if he feels the objection is substantive. I use a similar methodology when I close FARCs. If there are reasoned, logical calls for removal, and any number of keep votes that do not actually respond to the objections raised, I am more likely to discount those votes. Indeed, this is a discussion, and not a strict vote, and we must hold our featured content to a higher standard. I will not comment on the progress of the current discussion and will withhold contemplating a decision until the two week limit has expired, except to say that due to the level of genuine objections to its status, Raul should reconsidder the Article of the Day for December 25th. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I replied to your message. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerns

As you may know, I have had some discussions with Anonymous Editor about the differences of Islam and Christianity. Well, I would also like to point out some things on your page that I didn't quite agree with (please do NOT take this as a personal attack, as it is NOT one). First of all, you said that President Bush ordered a bomb dropped on an ally because of some journalists. I can't see why he would do this. Where did you hear this? Quite a few nespapers are biased, you know. I did agree to the fact that Holocaust denial is BS, and nobody should be engaging in it at all. It's just plain idiocy. Now to what I was saying earlier to AE, Christians believe that Jesus actually died on the cross, and was raised to life three days later. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Allah just took Jesus from the cross before He even died. Of course that poses a great difference between these two religions. Of course, Allah doesn't have a Son, but Jehovah does. Muslims and Christians can't worship the same God, because they both worship Him in different ways. No offense, of course. Scorpionman 02:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there Scorpion -- alas, from all I can make out, Bush did indeed want to bomb Qatar (a U.S. ally) in order to silence journalists -- see this link. As for Christianity and Islam, I prefer to emphasize their similarities, which are substantial. See Christo-Islamic. Peace, and please do keep in touch. BYT 03:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scorpion, this is why I said you should talk to BYT. Because you and I already have been through this before and I told you that although the beliefs are different there is only one God. And I am not sure whether you could ever agree that God is the same. So as Brandon says it's better to look at the similiarities. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Scorpionman -- ... it may also help for me to point out that Jesus appeals to "our Father" (metaphorically speaking), thus implying God as the (so to speak) Father of all humanity. This seems to me to be a good point for Christians and Muslims to engage in dialogue, and it is certainly something we can all agree on. BYT 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that you Anonymous editor pointed out is that Jesus said "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God the Father" (Luke 18:19). AE, what He was actually saying was "Why do you call me good? No one is good except for God the Father". This doesn't mean that He wasn't part of the Trinity. He was asking the rich young ruler why he was calling Him good, and that no one is good except for God, so that meant that Jesus is God, because He is good. Ttyl Scorpionman 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Look I don't know what you are trying to say and before if I go on to anymore discussion, I want to know, What is the concern and what is the point of this? Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we need to put the information back in the Islam page that says that conversion out of Islam has been punished by death. It has, even if it is not allowed in the Koran. Thanks Scorpionman 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

There seems to be a user who is stalking me and reverting me on every article. Could you please take a look at their ridiculous xenophobic insertions? Yuber^(talk) 05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Major work on some articles

Brandon,

Please check out Hijab and Abu Dharr -- I did a lot of rewriting. Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas! Us non-Christians get to do Christmas too, if we want! Zora 07:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Hi Brandon, it seems an admin has moved Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism. This isn't someone I asked to look at the vote, or someone I know, and he left no note on talk that I can see, so I've left a query for him. [15] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI User_talk:Nandesuka#Islamofascism_.28term.29. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

various questions

Hi Brandon. I am after making comments on Talk:Allah (about how to phrase the intro etc in relation to how/who by the name is used) and Talk:Islam and Judaism (on a minor issue regarding the New testament in Islam), both of which you might be able to help with. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 04:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Eurabia

Hi Brandon

you might be interested in the proposed merge under discussion here. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I felt I couldn't do it myself without being accused of being a "rouge" admin. ;-) I've already left a note about it on WP:AN/I, but I suspect any other admin looking at it will support your decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

new noticeboard

I've created Wikipedia:Islam and Judaism controversies noticeboard, I thought you might be interested. --Victim of signature fascism 19:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Islamist terrorism into Militant Islam , Dar al-Harb into Dar al Islam & Offensive jihad into Combative jihad, please comment if you have thoughts on the matter . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Books

Hi! I think this discussion about naming conventions for books is interesting, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titl(ing) books. Please participate! Cheers -- Szvest 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Chomsky

The way I read it is, because he insists on a consistent definition, he is led to the conclusion that America is a terrorist state.--SarekOfVulcan 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but there are so many definitions out there. We have to be careful it doesn't appear that we're leaving the implication that the simple act of picking any one definition inevitably leads to the conclusion that the US is a terrorist state. (George Bush might choose a different definition, one he could choose to employ consistently, that leads to precisely the opposite conclusion.) BYT 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Brandon. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! : ) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You should try soon too. Just remember to tell me about it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. :) Most editors will see that you've done good work in the past. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Eid Saeed ! All the best for the holidays! --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak Brandon! Also best for the holidays. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarrak --Khalid! 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle

Brandon, I do understand your POV about MSK. I think her problem largely stems from believing that factionalism is rather more deeply entrenched than it actually is here. Maybe that is the product of a naturally confrontational attitude; maybe a product of her syndrome. I don't know. I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the best though. The message I'd be giving to her would be "If you want to contribute positively, contribute positively. Don't revert, don't bicker, don't fight." Of course, that involves her finding someone she trusts who will tell her, you're reverting too much, you're bickering, you're fighting. Perhaps her problem with you was that she didn't choose you; you just had something to say to her? Grace Note 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, other explanations are possible. I do mention, each time I say anything about it, that I can understand other conclusions being drawn. However, for me, assuming good faith means not drawing them if others are possible. If she were given a second chance and returned to the same behaviour (or even the same pages for that matter), I'd be first in line to kick her stupid arse for it. Grace Note 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

your revert on islamist terrorism

Please read the talk page post I made in response to the user who originally made this revert. As you can see, my edit portrayed both sides, while this edit only gives extended context of one side. If you want to work off my version that's great, but I think its unfair and unencyclopedic in this version. Thanks!--Urthogie 14:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The hateful article

You don't have e-mail enabled, so I'll ask my question here. Why is that you find the existence of this article so upsetting? You say that every morning you wake up to a Wikipedia that slurs your faith with the existence of this article. But even those commentators who think that the battle against "Islamofascism" is the most important struggle in human history do not use the term as a synonym for Islam. Daniel Pipes, Christopher Hitchens, even those guys recognize a distinction between Islam itself and the extremist political movements that they find so hateful. So is it just the merging of the two words, "Islam" and "fascism" that you find so upsetting? So upsetting that even a Wikipedia article that merely chronicles the use of the term is an insult to Islam itself? I ask because I genuinely want to understand why this article bothers you so intensely. Regards, Babajobu 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal 2.0 voting has begun

See here. zen master T 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Propsed Merger

Go ahead and start the merger process as normal and put it on propsed mergers, requests for merging, or whatever the hell else, but if and only if everyone agrees to one of you doing it. Otherwise get either me or a neutral admin from AN to do it. I'd like to keep this as controversy free as posssible after all.--Tznkai 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the welcome! I am borrowing of the tags on Bush on my userpage. I must congratulate you on your conversion! Please, help to fix Islamophobia. It is FULL of Yehudi bias! Lajjadda Leave a message

Don't waste your time, BYT. This guy is just a sockpuppet of the deranged User:Zeno of Elea. Look at his edits and you'll see an edit to Saduj al Dahij's page who was Zeno's "Islamist" sockpuppet. He is called a strawman sockpuppet, that is a sockpuppet set up to make Muslims look bad. Yuber^(talk) 02:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good Yuber. I have blocked Addajjal indefinitely. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A.n.o.n.y.m, did you have a checkuser performed before indefinitely banning the new user? There is no reason to speculate about sockpuppetry anymore, we have tools to answer the question pretty decisively. Babajobu 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Baba. There is no need. All his edits are the same and check some of his first few edits. And then if you check his talk page he denies even remembering the name of the person he just gave an award to. Also check what his name is when you read it backwards. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure time for everyone: I was suspicious on a number of fronts here, and wanted to see what kind of edits would be forthcoming from this user. BYT 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Islamofascism discussion

I saw your name here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#New Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia-like vote stacking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple and direct. Don't do this. Its considered problematic and impolite, and is unwise. I don't think you're trying to stack the vote, but its best we just let things gather as they go.--Tznkai 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That was dissapointing, to read how you stacked those votes(its not very polite or fair)...Don't do that in the future, man! By the way, I got the mistress to revert her oppose, so it's looking better.--Urthogie 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is the first I've heard of this kind of thing being a problem. I will certainly lay off. Out of curiosity, is anyone talking to User:IronDuke about this? BYT 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could supply a diff, I would. In the future, please just ask people to give their two cents about your argument, instead of asking for them to look at it, without saying anything else(which kinda suggests that you want them to agree with you). You'll get even more points if you consult editors who you respect from both sides of an issue. Not a huge deal, just avoid it yeah. Peace, salaam, shalom.--Urthogie 21:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. Here is the diff for IronDuke: [[16] BYT 22:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats not good the way he approaches him. If he does it again(two times is enough for me to contact the editor usually), then either you or I should inform him that it's not polite/fair. PS: its been very good discussing issues with you, I find that you get right to the point, thank you.--Urthogie 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe there were at least three of these. I will find the diffs and pass them along. Nice working with you, too. BYT 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- didn't realize this discussion was on your page. Wanted to be able to post a reply that could be read by everyone involved. IronDuke 02:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to respond to the above. Let me first say that I find BYT's virtual wiki-stalking of me either very flattering or very creepy, I'm not altogether certain which. Let me also say that if urging people to vote (without a even a specific recommendation) is a violation of etiquette, then I have done so and apologize. However, after having looked at the Catholic Alliance thingie, I am not and have never been a part of any organization or cabal on WP (or anywhere else), formally or informally (unlike, I gather BYT, who is/was a member of such a cabal). The people that I contacted had all voted on the issue previously, and the vast majority of them I do not know and don't wish to know and have had no previous contact with (and not all of whom voted with me). If, even with the above caveats in mind, this is still a violation of something or other, please let me know. Ironically, the idea to do this came from BYT. I've only myself to blame. IronDuke 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

ironduke

He definitely is wording that in a way to bias people, so I'd suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm going to make sure theres a guideline on some wikipdia page that tells people not to do this type of stuff because it seems like theres no such page, its like an assumed unwritten rule-- ill work on fixing that. Thanks!--Urthogie 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 bin Laden video

I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Check this out

Coalition of the bribed :P --Striver 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You really have Charles to thank for this - he listed the reasons, I just joined up the dots :) - FrancisTyers 13:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorism to Islamic Terrorism

Hi Brandon. Hope you're staying out of trouble :). There's a proposal to move Islamist terrorism to "Islamic terrorism". I think this would be unfortunate. If you're interested there's a vote section on the talk page.--Lee Hunter 15:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you support the most recent compromise. Could you formally vote for support if this is the case? 60% is required for a move.--Urthogie 13:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)