Thank you for copying the el fagr picture into the article.
This is the first controversial article I have contributed to, and I did not know this was permitted.
DanielDemaret 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Test reality. Others are sometimes busy contributing while you are rushing to criticize.
Exactly what is your POV on this? You seem to me a bit slanted toward the pissing-on-Jesus-is-art perspective and a bit indifferent to a broad-based study of social conflict with reference to the diverse forms conflicts can take. PaxTerra 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
three hours ago I asked if you would agree to the list as it stood, if it were listed sequentially. When you didn't immediately share the work of sequentializing the list, i did. Now you continue to whine about content of the list that is not familiar to your immediate experience. Can you consider the possibility that others have knowledge that you have not encountered? You call it tenuous at best perhaps becuase you are not privy to any newsletters of African American community groups, but in doing so you demean the discussion of these groups.
What's more, you assumed bad faith that the typographical error that made Julius Ceaser out of Julius Streicher. How that happened I don't know, because I cut and pasted from a link to Streicher. Whatever. You are giving me the notion Wikipedia is a project of hte piss-on-jesus free speech crowd and that you have no real intention of exploring the history of social conflict as it is exhibited in the controversy that is the topic of that article. PaxTerra 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netscott, checked his talk page and contribs. Didn't see any blankings...was there something in particular you wanted me to look at? I have to log off soon but will check if I can. Regards, Babajobu 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd seen your note, but it looks as though all five of those edits were made by users other than Terra. Do you have any reason to suspect they are his sockpuppets? Babajobu 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have a way of checking, but their are a few admins who have "checkuser" privileges and can check out the IPs of different users to see if they are the same. You can request it here, [1] gotta go. Babajobu
Your interest in an article about which you claim no knowledge[edit]
Your changes to the Der Sturmer article serve no purpose other than Wikistalking an editor you seem unable to deal with in direct dialogue about the subject at hand. The fact is, his publication activities were "among evidence" at Neuremberg. The reasons for his conviction, in toto, which you attempt to repeat with an internal link is not the same as a article about his publictions you deprecated that otherwise explained his publications were presented as evidence. When you get done with your wikistalking, try studying some logic, Netscott. It might contribute to a more generally cooperative atmosphere and might encourage me to contribute more content rather than defending ad nauseum the valuable content I've already contributed. An article may be considered overlinked if ... a link is repeated in the same article. Repeating a link to cite text you don't fully understand, and primarily to demonstrate one-up-man-ship to another editor does not contribute to a collaborative environment. PaxTerra
Not sure why you're accusing me of 'Wikistalking' when I've simply followed wikilinks leading to Julius Steicher from Jyllands and decided to make an edit or two.
In your edits around him I've really gotten the impression that you're rather inclined to belittle Streicher's role in the movement to exterminate the Jews. It almost seems like a racists POV.
And why did you blank those pages? Were you just furious and needed to do something to vent? I suppose that's understandable.
Netscott 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me racist is a personal attack, not to mention 180° off target. Another false allegation. I added a link from the Danish cartoons page to the Julius Sturmer page which you seem determined to remove. Who is the revisionist now? You are the one who has persistantly tried to delete fro the Danish cartoons article reference to public references to Streicher, and I think I recall, to Jewish comparisons to a Palestenian newspaper. Don't try to pass yourself off as a champion of Israel son.
I don't have, in the context of editing these articles, any opinion about his role other than favoring factual representation -- I certainly have not belittled his role -- I have expounded on a role, which you have attempted to hide. Then I assured that the article about his publishing activities contained specific references to the role of his publishing activities as evidence at an International War Crimes tribunal. Your reference to the specious phrase "exterminating the Jews" amplifies a naive phrase that overrates the strengh of Germany, which was spectacularly unable to extermenate a durable and tenecious culture, regardless some Germans prolonged and cruel effort. In amplifying such emotional grandiosity at the expense of clear, accurate exposition only plays into the hands of holocaust deniers. I doubt you, an amateur editor, have spent much time considering the implications of your own publishing activities, nor your obligation to strictly accurate language, Netscott. PaxTerra 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here User_talk:David.Monniaux#Thanks.21 you can be seen thanking someone for deleting reference the very Julius Streicher article you call me racist for having allegedly belittled his role in the Holocaust. Why don't you want to know that sometimes inciteful speech is considered so offensive, legitimate legal bodies have executed especially virulant practitioners? Do you think it means I want the Danish cartoonists punished? That's just not the case. I am considering the controversy from an academic posture.
I think I'm figuring out the reason for your campaign against me -- you can't understand someone who considers not both, but all sides of a conflict. You want me to take one side or the other, and probably to concede that an essentially all-speech-is-free-speech stance is the core reasonable and neutral stance, while anyone outside that view is motivated by religious belief. But I am adept at considering both the stance of those who advocate libertarian policies toward symbolism and the stance of those who understand reasons to control certain symbolic acts. It really seems to bother you that I don't take sides but that I expound merits of conflicting sides. That is something you can learn to do, Scott. PaxTerra 10:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the editor you complained about and will remove your comment and your name if you don't mind.--MONGO 06:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime...but the block is only for 24 hours so if it happens again and appears to be either the same editor or same editing style, post another vandalism report and note the similarities...this will ensure a longer block. But the page is now protected, so that will reduce or eliminate much of the problem, but a page should not be protected very long...a day or two.--MONGO 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No and piss off, no personal attacks 69.248.237.88 04:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're an idiot so let me make it clear, I am not another user so stop accusing me of being one particularly ones that are vandals as I am not. 69.248.237.88 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing User:69.248.237.88 of sockpuppettry in the manner in which you did is highly innapropriate. I've blocked him for personal attacks, but I have half a mind to do the same to you. Keep it civil, alright? --InShaneee 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't just a question. The tone of all three of your comments is HIGHLY accusatory. If you really wanted to ask, you could have just asked, without the other parts. --InShaneee 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Just keep in mind, vandal or not, we do have to assume good faith. --InShaneee 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this is your last warning. That comment on MY talk page now is also out of line. If you've got a problem with this user, take it up through the proper channels. --InShaneee 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're making accusations. Just because you use innuendo doesn't give you licence to do that. --InShaneee 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Irishpunktom, I don't know why you insist on having this 'anti-denmark boycott' link here when it's already in sub page... for balance here's "support denmark movement"[edit]
I know that not all use it this way, but I would prefer the term "ethnic background", since 80% of all biologist seem to find the idea of "race" no longer useful. :) DanielDemaret 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netscott, The wikilink to the dossier is right under the heading (main article link). I just removed a duplicate. Please dont revert a substantial edit just because you dissagree with the removal of one link. --PeR 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I hadn't seen the article, so I'm hugely grateful for the reference. Our studies deal with similar issues, the sharing of intentions, but while the Science one is about sharing 'acts' (being able to grab some food), mine is about the inclination to share information about something novel and weird. I am buried in analyses and organization and havent read ANYTHING (save save the notorious MC discussions) for half an eternity, so it is a welcome addition to my pile. Best, Varga Mila 14:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The past 5 min that I have attempted, I get the prompt that it has been protected so that editing by new or unregistered users have been disabled (despite being logged on). You seem to be able to edit the MC page. Do you know by any chance if it would have something so to with my 'account' as such ? Varga Mila 14:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netscoot. I deleted your last contribution. Of course you're right. But he is in no condition to take this. Have some mercy with R., he's obviously a bit, well, fragile ? Thanks Azate 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott - Without prejudice to any other issues raised, I'd be very cautious using the word "defamation". This could be seen as edging up on a legal threat and may serve to ditract from the issues that you are attempting to raise. - brenneman{T}{L}
User notice: temporary 3RR block on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block [2] is 12 hours; the page is Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. William M. Connolley 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps: please mark your reverts as such
You ask where did I not do so? - I can't understand your question. None of the edits you made were marked as reverts. Please mark them with "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary William M. Connolley 09:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support your proposal, I don't see the point in excluding highly relevant information, that can be included using less than 5 words. As has been lamented against Google's adventures in China, excluding information is tantamount to misinformation (even when the subject is a tightly written encyclopedia entry). But I've decided not to make any further comments or contributions to article (at least for some time), as I find the atmosphere accusative and, at times, uncomfortable. All the best, Varga Mila 13:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't mind. Do as you see fit. Varga Mila 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos the Bamiyan B's: The movie was aired last night on SVT (Swedish Television.) I wasn't home to watch it, but recorded it on video. Interresting movie. Unfortunately I lost the aftertitles with all the detailed references to who is who
I don't like links in comments and I can remove them off my talk page if I want including any comments which I don't need anymore. I left your comment there so I could reply to it; no words changed. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.mt 20:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting in touch - I was almost going to get in touch with you but have been busy on other things recently. I think Irishpunktom's heavily pro-Islam POV and habits of blankly reverting are a problem and I copied the RFC template to a user page to prepare it but have not had the time to add information. How about we work together on this? David | Talk 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Charles has always had an interest in Islam.. Moreso than any other royal.. He is a Patron of many Islamic Charities, and Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. [3] His opinions, as the future King-and thus head of a major religion, is not irrelevent. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... not sure why you've brought the word 'irrelevant' into this editorial discussion but by all means do cite your source for such pointed details about Prince Charles' views on the matter. Netscott 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scott. Thanks getting it touch & for your offer of assistance. It's nice to know that you're not alone when you're about to pull your hair out in frustration! Obfuscate is a particularly accurate description. Also, if there's anything I can do to help, please just give me a shout. Veej 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you had colored in words in several articles. Please don't do that: literate people can read text quite well enough without needing the words to be colored in. For example: "melanotan II" has a little "II" on the end, so readers can distinguish it from "melanotan", which doesn't. There is no need to go coloring them green and brown, respectively: doing so makes the articles harder to read, and detracts from the rest of the text. -- The Anome 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I was curious to know why you didn't specifically point out the examples of "blatant hate for muslims" in your note?
As an new editor on that article my goal is to ensure NPOV in it. Unfortunately there is heavy POV on both sides of the issue which on articles of that type is probably normal. Perhaps you could assist in "NPOVising" the article? Netscott 07:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking more about the blatant hate that was apparent in the discussions about the article rather than the article itself. I would love to help NPOVising it...but I'm at a serious loss as to where to start. It's a tricky subject with no easy editing tasks before it. Any specific ideas/sections I'd be glad to tackle though, so let me know. Madangry 18:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you don't talk to me about those kinds of things. I wasn't using Crad in any form like that. I was only using it as a shortened variation of Comrade. How did you just happen to stumble on that particular page, huh? Frenchies. Crad0010 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this just in:
Another "french movie" will be aired tonight on Television 2. Features Ahmed Akkari in the backseat of a cab, frivolously sharing his fantasies of murdering MP Naser Khader to a somewhat surprised french journalist ... :-D
"Smile, you are on candid camera!"
The story was broken by JP at 01:00 this morning and is all over the place by now.
Refrain from Attacking others. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to that, but, yes, its far from civil.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you know, you could just refrain from vandalism, incivility and overly aggressive behaviour - just a crazy thought! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; or perhaps your refusal to ackowledge that you should not violate others user pages, make reverts on pages on which you appear to know nothing or taunt people is far from civil - yet you bemoan others for not upholding such things - Who, exactly, is the "illiterate" one.. Who was it, remind me, that you called an "Idiot"?--Irishpunktom\talk 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly because it was brought up on a talk page on my watchlist. Your first edit to one of the cited articles was to revert me to include some obviously false information. And you can assume things all you want, it doesn't make you right. Further, you havn't answerd the question I asked. Why won't the Bastian of civility remind me? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care - you can't vandalise Userpages.--Irishpunktom\talk 12:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could the addition of two extremely small comments be construed as vandalism? I'd agree if I had erased the "list" or blanked the page... but this I did not do... your hyperbole makes laugh... thanks for that. LOL! ;-) Netscott 12:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It irrelevent. It was vandalism - Don't touch others' userpages in future.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh be quiet Irishpunktom and please refrain from continuing to post completely irrelevant non-sense to my User_talk page. Netscott 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remain civil and quit making false and asinine accusations. Netscott 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refrain from Attacking others. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Irishpunktom but try applying a little logic and realize that I never did attack you by saying you were asinine but your accusations are asinine. There is a big differnce you know? Netscott 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to that, but, yes, its far from civil.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, it was so clear to what it was that you were referring to... why don't you just go ahead and file an WP:RFC and watch what a laughingstock it'd become... such an RfC would be asinine itself. Netscott 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you know, you could just refrain from vandalism, incivility and overly aggressive behaviour - just a crazy thought! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, such accusations need to be demonstrated with diffs otherwise they remain asinine... I have been nothing but civil with you and have even paid you a compliment or two... but I'm hard pressed to find instances where you've assumed good faith and done the same. Netscott 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have I been civil, I have actually admonished those who weren't. You have no proof of such inane and ridiculous accusations so I politely request that you cease from making them. Netscott 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my saying so Irishpunktom but I'm begining to think that you have less than a mastery of the English language (many of your seemingly illiterate posts in fact remind me bit of some of Raphael1's posts). "Angle of Attack" refers to the actual filing of an RfC, not attacking you as an individual. Please do refrain from making such asinine accusations. Netscott 15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; or perhaps your refusal to ackowledge that you should not violate others user pages, make reverts on pages on which you appear to know nothing or taunt people is far from civil - yet you bemoan others for not upholding such things - Who, exactly, is the "illiterate" one.. Who was it, remind me, that you called an "Idiot"?--Irishpunktom\talk 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another false accusation, at this point it's normal for me to be editing on topics related to Islam and Muslims as the hundreds of Islam and Muslim related article edits on my contribution history will surely demonstrate. A better example of Wikistalking however would be your reverting of my good faith edits on User:Crad0010 which you would only have been aware of if you had 'stalked' me. To be honest though, I don't see either your edits or mine as stalking... you're just demonstrating a suspicion of my edits and I can only assume good faith and suppose you thought that you were within your rights to revert them. You haven't denied that I've made edits of a complimentary nature relative to you, so any reader can assume that my statement is true. Of course I can provide diffs if the need is there. Again Irishpunktom do refrain from making falseaccusations. Netscott 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly because it was brought up on a talk page on my watchlist. Your first edit to one of the cited articles was to revert me to include some obviously false information. And you can assume things all you want, it doesn't make you right. Further, you havn't answerd the question I asked. Why won't the Bastian of civility remind me? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insinuating that I have previously called you an "idiot"? Well, at least your not making further false accusations, but do your best to render your argument cogent and provide a diff. I'm begining to tire of this as you've not made any truly substantiated claims and our argumentation skills do not seem evenly matched. This unfortunately, is turning this "debate" into a one sided conversation. Netscott 17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why in the world did the whole vandilasation joke become such a problem between you and Irishpunktom? Why else would I put in the Police line and chalk outline, and CSI thing on there, as well. It was half joke, half "You know you're not supposed to edit other's userpages, how would you feel if I actually screwed up your userpage with the same reason you edited mine?" Explain yourselves. Now. Crad0010 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the changes be, but here was what I was saying in terms of point of view. I don't think the articles being linked to were written in neutral point of view; I simply think the selection of links were. For example, the link to The 100, whose only purpose is to demonstrates one author's view of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the most influential person in history, is not balanced by another link about criticism of him. In fact, none of those links focus on any articles on an opposing, less respectful viewpoints of the Prophet (although Depictions of Muhammad comes close). The least we could do is relieve the See Also section of some of its piety (Seal of the Prophets) and unnecessary praise (The 100). joturner 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joturner, thank you for writing me. No dispute on my part about The 100 and Seal of the Prophets my edits were moreso in regards to Depictions of Muhammad and List of films about Muhammad. The first is imho very relative in a "see also" context and the second is just odd because there's doesn't seem to be any point in having a redirected wikilink when the wikilink can just go directly to the pertinent article. Netscott 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I couldn't agree with you more. Those two articles do belong; it must have had to do with the edit conflict that occured during my first edit attempt (I was editing AE's version while you were making your edit). I was only attempting to remove Ya Muhammad, Zulfiqar, The 100, and Seal of the Prophets. Do you contest those removals? But absolutely, Depictions of Muhammad and List of films about Muhammad should remain; I mistakenly presumed that when AE noted back to keeping the links in his edit summary, those links include the latter two. joturner 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had tried to save it before, but it failed.. twice.. I was just submitting hoping it would work, the edit comment was not thought of! --Irishpunktom\talk 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus at all, since there are many who disagree. It might be still a majority, but it is 'no consensus. Raphael1 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides this is no vandalism as any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. This is not an attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, but rather to improve it's quality by being less offensive. Raphael1 18:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of trying to go piecemeal at Irishpunktom's fundamentally flawed version, start with this version and move on from there. Trust me, if you don't, you'll be here all night. David | Talk 00:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does not revert that appalling edit of his in its entirety within the next few minutes I will either scream or do it myself and hang the consequences. David | Talk 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message of trust. Actually, we all are here to make the Project. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your compliments. But, perhaps a section of people do not want wikipedia to reflect the correct position perhaps. I have removed the page Muslim world from my watch list, and i trust others shall surely make this page reflective of the truth for which we all ahve come here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_world#A_Note In case, you require any administrative assistance, please drop me a note. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments for further development of the policy. I think it is late for both of your suggestions, though. It is already there and started as a policy page. Having it in my page wouldn't thelp because eventually we will make it public. If there is a resistence, it will take place that time too. I want the proposal be discussed but nicely and positively. Thanks for your constructive suggestions though. Has something changed with you? Resid Gulerdem 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have no substantive comment to attach this to in the article talk page (I'm suspending the discussions with Irishpunktom and Raphael1 that depended primarily on the definition of Islamophobia), I'll mention here I regard your edit of my comment as an improvement, and don't object. Nysin 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about nominating it for AfD, since Wikipedia is a lot more comprehensive than other online sources of information. However, I do think that a review of all the references provided in the article is in order, to determine if they are acceptable under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as is specified by Wikipedia:Verifiability. We do include some very doubtful subjects in Wikipedia, like Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. There is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Fringe theories that seems to be moving towards determining consensus on whether these kinds of subjects are acceptable. I think nominating it for AfD should be done only if we determine that this information is not verifiable. As is pointed out on Wikipedia:Google_test:
"Given that the results of a Google test are interpreted subjectively, its implementation is not always consistent. This reflects the nature of the test being used on a case by case basis.
In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. However, in fact, this reflects on the rather uneven and subjective nature of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process more than on the usefulness of the Google test. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive."
I think if you are going to nominate this for AfD, you should have all your research on the verifiability in order, since there will likely be lots of opposition. Cheers, jacoplane 02:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are other ways to request editor input, including Wikipedia:Peer review (although that is not appropriate for this article) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. However, I have not had that much feedback on a number of peer reviews or RfCs I've done in the past. But a RfC is usually the first steps towards resolving conflict, and maybe there will be a lot of responses on this subject. Nominating an article for AfD does usually enure that articles get cleaned up and POV and original research is removed, even if the article itself is not deleted. Cheers, jacoplane 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netscott, I've voted to keep the article in the AfD, and I will now try to work some on the article to make it less POV. I hope that my contributions will be welcomed. Cheers, jacoplane 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's Crad again. I never thanked you for explaining everything for the whole spam thing. I can't beleive I thought that was real. Anyways, thanks again for clearing that up for me. Also I wanted to know if you could help me out here. I'm thinking about proposing an idea of a reputation system here at Wikipedia, and I was hoping you'd be my, um... what a good word for it? Hm... partner, I guess. So, how 'bout it? Or is there another 300 reasons why this is a bad Idea? Crad0010 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, I was comparing a reputation system here to one in say, an Internet forum, such as Gamewinners. This reputation system would be used to distinguish the new Wikipedians from the veterans of Wikipedia. If you are trying to get a new policy approved, would you go to a new Wikipedian who does not have as much experience here rather than someone that may also be a recent joiner, but has a good sense of what's going on in Wikipedia? I'm sure that the cream of the crop of Wikipedia probably all have a huge collection Barnstars, but It's kinda hard to get around the user stuff. I know there's probably a bunch of stuff you could out up a good arguement with, but what do you think so far? Crad0010 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot archive a previously helf AFD (or VFD as it was then). To List an article for a second nomination, See Here: Template talk:Afdx--Irishpunktom\talk 11:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
