User talk:Netscott/Archive-02

Welcome to the garden.

The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian

Archive-01

Solar Elclipse Wikibreak

I will not be available until Thrusday of this week due to a trip to Turkey where hopefully I will see a total solar eclipse. Netscott 12:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you deserve one of these by now then?

---

This user knows that there is no dark side of the moon really — matter of fact it's all dark.

...

And all that you do

And all that you say

And all that you eat

And everyone you meet

And all that you slight

And everyone you fight

And all that is now

And all that is gone

And all that's to come

And everything under the sun   is in tune

But the sun is eclipsed by the moon

Yeah man, totally. Totally. Funny, had the urge to play some Floyd (on piano) between J.S.Bach and Jerome Kern. No doubt the neighbors were puzzled.

I do hope you enjoyed the summary of 48:29.

Timothy Usher 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

MX44 09:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, tell us a little about where you went and how it was ... MX44 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Netscott/Archive-02, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics

Netscott, if you try to be supportive and do not ruin my edits the things will be better. It is unacceptable that you stroke my edits. Regarding your suggestion, it is too late for it and do not work as I said before. Why people who is agains the proposal and you for example are not listing the parts you dislike? Resid Gulerdem 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can choose to wait untill the proposal is complete then, instead of ruining the discussion. Resid Gulerdem 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation report

While you didn't violate the letter of the three revert rule, you most certainly violated its spirit. Please attempt to discuss things with Resid Gulerdem further instead of using an edit war/block to make your point. I understand your frustration with the poll summary, but please use some of the dispute resolution options available to you. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

I just wanted to see if you were stalking me. And you were. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you checked, you will find that I have previously worked on that page, meaning it will be on my Watch list less I choose to remove it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Hi,

Interesting, but this is a letter to the editor. Conceivably, if I wrote a letter making an important point, and in the process of so writing included an entirely new word coinage, that also would be published. Hence, I consider such letters evidence of informal use only. WP is not a dictionary, and does not aim to compile a list of every word used in common speech. Only notable topics (with, I'll add, an accepted common name in standard English, or their language of origin) are encyclopedic. A linguist might find this letter useful as a primary source, but it does not substantially affect the case for the notability of this topic at WP. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If User:Dpbsmith's argument is, in your thinking, the primary reason for supporting the deletion, your choice is entirely logical. As I noted at DRV, I have two grounds for my vote, and thus am not so convinced. In the strictest sense, I should probably strike one of my two grounds in light of your evidence, but I am not that much of a stickler! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues with statues

I seem to remember that you were involved in a discussion about the Buddha statues and the how and why of their destruction. Then, you'll probably find this interesting: [1] Azate 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thx

... for the warning Tajik 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Revert

Why have you decided to remove the following valid info[2]:

The Mughals were led into India by Babur who had been born in Central Asia in 1483. Babur's victory at Panipat in 1526 established the Mughal Empire and ended the reign of the Delhi Sultanate.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, now the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, now the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer.

What, of this, do you have a problem with. I did not add this info to the artcile, Tajik removed it, I re-added it, and now, for no apparent reason, you are removing it - Why?

• Babbur was born in Fegana in 1483 .. Are you disputed this? - if not, why are you removing it? [3]
• Babur did rule Kabul for twenty years prior, obtaining it in 1504 [4].. Are you disputing this? - if not, why are you removing it?
• "Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins" - Have you a problem with this? Why? You are going againt the Encyclopedia Brittanica[5], not to mention a whole series of scholarly works.. Do you really dispute this? - if not, why are you removing it?
• "the term ‘Mughal’ by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk." - What part of this do you disupte? - You must agree that its a word of Persian origin, for it is in the opening paragraph, written as دولتِ مغل too. That it was pejorative? do you dispute that? It was, read Baburs writing, the baburnama to see how he viewed himself a Turk.

Explain yourself. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • That answered nothing! Which of those points you have chosen to remove from the article do you disagree with, and why ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott,

you might be interested in this, which I posted a couple of weeks ago on the Talk:Babur page:

• Babur himself considered the term 'Mongol' (مغل) to be somewhat derogatory, and it was in fact a misnomer applied by sixteenth century Europeans to the rulers of India, possibly because of memories of the earlier Mongol invasions. Thackston writes:

"History has conspired to rob Babur not only of his fame as a Central Asian sovereign over the kingdom of Kabul for much longer than he was in the subcontinent, but also of his primary identity as a Timurid [ie. a Turco-Mongol dynast from the settled regions of Turkestan] by labelling him and his successors as 'Mughals' - that is, Moghuls, or Mongols - an appellation that would not have pleased him in the least. In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianised form of the Mongolian kürügän, 'son-in-law', a title he assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess. Nonetheless, Europeans, recognising that there was some connection between Babur's house and the Mongols but ignorant of the precise relationship, dubbed the dynasty with some variant of the misnomer Moghul (Mogol, Mogul, Maghol etc.) and made the name synonymous with greatness." Wheeler M. Thackston The Babur-nama (New York) 2002 pxivi

Thackston uses the term 'Turco-Mongolian' throughout to describe Babur's ethnicity, insofar as that is relevant. He certainly spoke and wrote in Turkish. The term 'Moghul' properly refers to the ruling dynasty of Moghulistan or Jatah (roughly speaking northern Chinese Turkestan, or Dzungaria), which was ruled by descendants of Genghis Khan's son Chagatai and is hence sometimes known as the Chagatai Khanate. Its history is somewhat obscure, but the principal source is Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat's Ta'rikh-e Rashidi. The author of this work was Babur's cousin, and on pxliii of Thackston's introduction to the Babur-nama he quotes from p97 of the Elias & Denison-Ross translation, which illuminates at once the unity of culture amongst the Turco-Persian Timurid elite, and the meaning given by contemporaries to the name 'Moghul'

"I heard that Yunus Khan [one of the sons of the lord of Moghulistan] was a Moghul, and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other Turk of the desert. But when I saw him, I found he was a person of elegant deportment, with a full beard and a Tajik face, and such a refined speech and manner, is seldom to be found even in a Tajik."

A distinction thus has to be made between notional ethnicity, (turco-mongol) and culture & language (turco-persian). Sikandarji 12:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-islamic POV

Ned, I will not deny that I do not hold a very favourable opinion to Islam. Nevertheless, I attempt to source my material as well as possible, as do many other users which share my Islam-critical POV. Saw you censored IrishPunktom as well as me, so you keep maintaining standards of fair play (which I cannot say of several other Wikipedia administrators). My sincere thanks and compliments for this. Regards, Germen. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Is there any reason you reverted my edits? Germen has been doing this for several months now and I sincerely think that you should read his edits before reverting. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please stop reverting, the information is very pov. We can't use bible.ca or any of the other small Christian personal webpages that were added any more that we can use an Islamic extremist website. And the section that says "Non-religious reasons for conversion" is definitely something that is biased and made up of nonsense on what Germen thinks are 'reasons'. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Yes I am discussing on the talk page right now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh...no=

Not all of them are just British English variants. Vkasdg 00:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically I did not do anything against the rules that are stated in the hidden text of the article. Vkasdg 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd really like to see me break the 3RR rule, wouldn't you? Vkasdg 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would just be following your example. Vkasdg 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I hate the consensus. Why does Wikipedia have to shove those pictures in my face? Vkasdg 01:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And how about other Muslims? No one's forcing you to waste your time either. Vkasdg 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe after a while. I wouldn't want to follow your example. Vkasdg 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when are "minsters", "Incitors", "reponded", "communique", "adherants", and "pictoral" examples of British English? If you care too look in a dictionary, you'll find that they are just wrong. And I did that WP:AN thing for you. Vkasdg 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright so now you've done the WP:AN thing as well. Congratulations. The least you could do is fix the spellings you supposedly corrected, because if I were to try to correct you would revert it due to your obvious paranoid edits. Vkasdg 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Any honorable Muslim would not want to see his Prophet defamed. Vkasdg 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And my block log doesn't reflect anything (yet). Yours on the other hand, does. Vkasdg 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I can throw a physical block at this user, but I cannot block from wikipedia. Sorry but i am not and never will be an admin. Mike _{(T C)} 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tricky

I like your style. Netscott 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thanks. Ditto for you. I'm so sick of the censorship police..its nice to find someone who disregards them. Netpari 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

bwduca

Regarding the PT-141 article discussion edit:

Use of wikitalk

Is a request for more information to be added to an article not within the bounds of what the wiki talk should be used for?--Drewlew 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon vandal

Just FYI, reported the cartoon vandal. Thanks for being on this, too. IronDuke 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I maybe should have waited until you put in the last warning template, but I think admins will get the picture -- oh, he's just been blocked. There we go. Still need the link? IronDuke 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanket revert

Do you understand what a blanket revert is? This was not a blanket revert, because it took the information you added and placed it in the correct area. A Blanket revert completely ignore previous edits and reverts to the older version regardless. As you can see from This comparison that is not what I did. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Three names could be a subsection to Military, but a seperate section is messy and wrong. Further, this is yet another occasion where your first edit to an article comes less than 24 hours after I edited it last, coincidence perhaps. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I moved the people in that section to a more accurate section - What section doo you believe the philosopher should be moved to ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV like that is not acceptable in a section like that especially since the only source for those people is the United States Department of Defence or the intelligence agencies. We don't even really know if they are Muslim. Because Irishpunktom is already discussing this with you here, let's finish the discussion here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have also moved the military ones into their own section and kept the alleged terrorism ones separate. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In view of your concerns for POV I've renamed the "Soldiers, figherts, Jihadists" section to "Military and Terror Related". Netscott 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Those in the "Convicted of Terrorism" section include and individual from a country other than the U.S. Netscott 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're actually a bit wrong, there are three seperate individuals who's been convicted in three seperate countries for terrorism. Who's pushing POV now? Netscott 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion here so I can see previous comments. Your "look whose doing something" now isn't helpful. Which three countries convicted them? If they are held by the United States then the US is the country. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Which of those are blind reverts? We don't need a special section for them, they are still part of the alleged terrorist list and I didn't change the respective countries part now, so what is the concern? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. Are you even reading my compromise edits? All I said is that they are all alleged ones, convicted ones are already identified as compromise. We don't need to write that they are convicted and alleged too when there is already entire sentences about them. What are you trying to do? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my first edit only took place once so why are you still changing it? The thing is that even if they are convicted, the terorism is only alleged.Adding more disputed material every time is not the way to deal with this. I am fine with it for now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional problematic behaviour of Anonymous Editor can be found at the Religious conversion article. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

La Convivencia

Yes, I am concerned about WP:NOT, and after looking at the article, I wasn't quite sure what the article is about and how widely accepted this term is. If the article is about a period in Spanish history, then the title "Convivencia" will be highly contentious given that it's not universally accepted to denote the period. If it is about the mutual influence of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures at that place and time, then it might be interesting, but again I'm not sure as to how accepted this term is. Do you know many scholarly sources apart from Glick et al that use this term? Pecher ^Talk 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Policy"

Editing through open proxies (yes, I tested them and blocked them indefinitely as such) is a violation of policy (see [6]). Using various identies to gain an advantage in an edit war and circumvent the WP:3RR is also a violation of policy. One week seems more than fair in this case. — Apr. 10, '06 [03:05] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

And yes, he has been previously warned about editing anonymously about the anonymous editing. Checkuser would be pointless here as he was not logged in as "Germen" when he was using the open proxies. I don't know what the edit war is really about and I don't care. I do suspect he will eventually be banned for his behavior. — Apr. 10, '06 [03:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Re: Open proxies

All blocked. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I'll be logging off in a few minutes (as soon as I finish referencing an article), just to give you a heads up. If I'm still around, I'll be glad to block them, otherwise I'll block them when I log in later. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you can't find anyone around, just drop them by anyways and I'll block them when I return. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Vkasdg

I've blocked him indefinitely. I originally only blocked him for 24 hours because that account had never been blocked before. I'm surprised nobody had done it before. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim converts list

Ehm, semantic problem with this fellow Jamal Lindsay. It is proven that he engaged in terrorist activity, nevertheless he was not convicted because Western jurisdiction does not apply for the afterlife. Do you agree for creating a third section? --Xorox 10:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principe. The problem is that other people are much more knowledgeable in 'positive' converts than I am and I believe the task of adding positive converts is in their safe hands. I try to stay NPOV and checking sources as well as possible. What do you think about the idea of adding a new section "Suicide bombers"? --Xorox 11:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

May be you should have more faith in the good intentions of our fellow editors. As bonafide Wikipedia contributors, they will take Wikipedia informational quality to heart and they will be pleased by our hard work, e.g. in restructuring the "not yet classified" section which was very unreadable. Please have more faith in your fellow Muslim Wikipedians, which most certainly do not meet the unjustified prejudices against Muslims.--Xorox 11:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, when I stumble upon one, I will add him or her to the appropriate category.--Xorox 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added a positive convert, too. --Xorox 11:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He is military related and that's good enough. We don't need a separate section for everyone. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The section says military related. What are you talking about? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's very pov. We have so many sections for people who one country claims are terrorists or bombed something when it's clear that one section could fit all of them. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could say that for your edits? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Fine, then remove statement, and add heading. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumors or claims can be worth noticing, though. Check the articles, they did put some convincing arguments. --Xorox 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked your references to Wikipedia guidelines. regarding those:

• Middle East Forum and their Middle East Quarterly seems to be a bona fide think tank. There were claims by the Mufti of Cyprus that he has converted. There was a corroborating newspaper publication (Evening Standard, Oct. 15, 1996).
• Also rumours and hoaxes can be WP:notable, see for instance the Protocols of Zion article. As long as it is stated that they lack substance. --Xorox 11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Like you, I am not intending to start an edit war. I will follow your suggestion to start a page "Rumoured converts to Islam". Is this OK with you? --Xorox 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your prophetic qualities were remarkable :) --Xorox 12:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm retar..

Ya... sorry... I'm not sure what was going through my head.... KI 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this danish pastry-mohammaden thing for real or was that vandalism? KI 00:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

open proxy

that one's now blocked indefinitely. thanks for the note.--Alhutch 03:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

any time. one question though, i'm not that familiar with the policy on open proxies. i know they aren't allowed, but i believe I read somewhere that the IP address is supposed to be unblocked after it has been determined that the proxy is closed or something like that. can you shed any light on this? thanks, --Alhutch 03:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info, i will read up on those pages. keep up the good work :-) Alhutch 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikijihad template

Warning: this page attracts religiously-motivated vandals on a wikijihad as seen on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. They may use anonymous IP addresses or sock puppets to delete useful information. Check this pages edit history to determine if anything useful has recently been deleted.Timothy Usher 04:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Muhammad

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. pschemp | talk 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• 02:34, 14 April 2006 first revert.
• 02:37, 14 April 2006 Actually edited and clarified what the link showed.
• 02:40, 14 April 2006 first revert to new clarified edit.
• 02:42, 14 April 2006 second revert to new clarified edit.

User:Joturner made mention of my "subsequent addtions" here.

I did not violate 3RR,please unblock me. Netscott 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was clearly acting in good faith re the WP:3RR, and quit reverting when he thought he'd run out. Further, he did discuss his changes on the talk page. It is rather Anonymous editor who declined discussion. Netscott should be unblocked.Timothy Usher 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy Usher, perhaps you could drop a note on Joturner's talk page for me or an admin? Thanks! Netscott 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try drop a note on User_talk:Pschemp's page. Netscott 04:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR is not a license to make three free reverts. Even if you weren't technically in violation of the 3RR, you were edit warring. Edit warring is bad. A break will do you good. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this have happened were the other warring editor not an admin? I suspect not. And if edit warring is bad, and a break does edit warriors good, wouldn't the other party also benefit from such a break?Timothy Usher 04:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock conditioned on the promise that NetScott not edit Muhammed for the next 24 hours. If he edits the page in the meantime, he should be reblocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly Martin for taking the time to understand this and being fair in your deciscion to unblock me. Netscott 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Netscott. I'd do the same for any editor (well, almost any editor) who I see being treated unfairly. I suspect the underlying problem here was that the content of "extreme Muhammad" section was deeply and understandably offensive to the admin in question. I'm very impressed that you took the unblock as a chance to apologize to those offended.Timothy Usher 04:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I try to be as documentary as possible and avoid POV regarding my edits to articles. I am sorry if I failed in doing so and am looking forward to your recommendations for improvement regarding this matter. --Xorox 11:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

Hi Netscott. Thanks for the note. I prefer to try convincing a vandal to stop, using warnings, rather than block them outright. We should really start with a {{test1}} or {{test2}} as described in Wikipedia:Vandalism. As happened in this case, the user was given three warnings and still blocked very quickly - so little further damage was done. Going straight to a {{test4}} can stop the vandalism slightly faster but, in my opinion, it can also lead to bad feeling, increasing the chance of future vandalism and reducing the chance of turning a vandal into a useful contributor (this does happen). Cheers TigerShark 12:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but in future I'd still take the same course of action as I did this time. In this case it is just a shame that the other users who reverted didn't take the extra step of placing a warning, as you did. Cheers TigerShark 13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused rename

While I oppose the actual rename proposed, I do appreciate the convivencia spirit in which it was made. It seems you've been taking lots of heat recently, and I wanted you to know that I do realize you have the best intentions. Good luck. -- GRuban 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciated your comments regarding La Convivencia on my user talk page. I'm thinking it might be nice to start an Esperanza type of editor base called La Convivencia to really hit home the need for such a spirit. Netscott 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my use of convivencia was inspired by your use of it on your user page; I thought that would be a good word for what you were trying to achieve with your proposal, and an admirable goal. But I'm not sure that it is missing from the current Wikipedia:Esperanza project. I think they'd be glad to have you. -- GRuban 00:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns about Religious Converts to Islam on my talk page

Please can you explain what you mean, as I am afraid I do not understand you. Did I do anything wrong? --Xorox 09:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina Varroni and other supposed non-notables.

Indeed, Sabrina Varroni is notable because she was the centre point of a civil rights controversy regarding wearing a burqa and warrants even a separate category under Criminal-associated ("controversies"). The same holds for Jeremiah Aucliffe (PhD holding scholar) and Michael Young (editor of a Lebanese periodical). I apologize for my haste judgment. In order to spark a debate whether interviewees of journalists warrant a separate category per se, I created a subcat at Journalists and writers. --Xorox 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad page madness

Not sure if you're allowed back there or not...but I've been tag-teamed, and recent tag-teamer edits are misguided to say the least - I've tried to engage in discussion to no real avail (and why should there be, there are two of them and only one of me) - and I can't rightly overturn them without community support. Oh well, such is life.

How have you been?Timothy Usher 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please explain your "References in connection resp. relative to" weasle word change on the talk page. Raphael1 11:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your note

I'll try to watch more closely. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism, and...

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Per your request, I unblocked that user with the multiplication mathematical symbol because of the edits that they made. I am not inclined to unblock the other users that registered at this time with other characters.--Adam ^(talk) 12:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

open proxies

I've never been able to figure out which users are using open proxies. How do you tell? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Thanks.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Its not that big a deal - Cleanup tags either go at the top or bottom of an article, or at the top of a section if they relate solely to that section. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand you, but, more than just the external links need to be cleaned up, and that is why it was moved to base. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No! More than just the external links need to be cleaned!! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If linkspam is your reason for removal then say as much. Removing external links because you disagree with their POV is wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A link does not have to be NPOV - Most aren't. Its a reflection of anothers POV, and its only place in Wikipedia can be as a citation or as an external link. Most external links concerning religion and religious topics tend to promote one POV. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't go playing the victim here. You know that you cannot Copy and paste from a Commercial venture into Wikipedia and save it as a total article. Its just wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is a copyright Violation, and if it wasn't it would not be suitable for an article. Compare with more established written declarations, like the US Bill of rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - neither of which simply copy the text into the article... even though neither of these would be CopyVios. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel

Hi and thanks for your contributions. I must say I don't think the term "infidel" is somehow especially characteristic of heirarchical religions; Sunni Islam, for instance, is not terribly heirarchical. The word "heirarchical" was initially inserted by User:Mike18xx without any clear basis for that. Kafir can indeed be a derogatory term, but first and foremost it is an Islamic legal term that simply acquired derogatory connotations over centuries. Pecher ^Talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Giaour indeed says that the term ceased to be pejorative, although I'm not sure what the source of this idea is. On the other hand, the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on kafir says that giaour is also abusive: "kafir had developed into a term of abuse, so frequent in the Turkish form giaour ". Pecher ^Talk 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that Giaour is sourced to the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 Edition; I'd lend more credence to the Encyclopaedia of Islam for the simple reasons that it's much newer and written by specialists. Pecher ^Talk 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If my English doesn't fail me, after the "as well as" construction we use the form of the verb agreeing with the noun or pronoun preceding the "as well as". Correct me, if I'm wrong. Pecher ^Talk 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Infidel

Yes indeed you broke 3RR, as I'm pretty sure you knew. 8h. Std rules apply: promise to be good and stick to 3RR in future, and (let us say) 1R on that article for the next few days, and I'll unblock you. William M. Connolley 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's very fair and I promise to be good and avoid reverting (and not view 3RR as a right). To be honest I didn't think that I had broken 3RR because I had been making various edits to the text as we went along, but was absolutely sure that Irishpunktom had. When I reviewed the history I then realized that I could be considered in violation too so in making my Irishpunktom report I decided to in include myself in the interests of full disclosure. Netscott 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're unblocked, be good or I double it... you'll probably find yourself blocked by the autoblocker after I unblock you... post here if so. William M. Connolley 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley, you are correct however in that the Autoblocker's still got my number. Seems to be a disjunction between the systems. ;-) Netscott 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be good to go now. I'm going to try and read up a bit more on the word kafir so that I might be able to edit the infidel article will all of the NPOV it correctly deserves. Netscott 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand, so add it is seen as derogatory by some. The Islam on line site is good.. but, a site on flower Bulbs from Holland?--Irishpunktom\^talk 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about lilies, but as it's Dutch I'd guess its origin to lie in the colonial/racist sense of kafir rather than from the Arabic/Islamic sense of unbeliever.Timothy Usher 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done

Sockpuppetry on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Greetings please be aware of this Request for Check User. ScottRR 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a sockpuppet to avoid a block on any violation. User:Raphael1 and myself have edit histories (Raphael has more than 1000 independent edits) that are virtually independent outside of the Muhammad cartoons article. Your asinine notice has been removed.

The fact that Raphael1 has over 1000 edits and you do not is the primary reason that it would appear that you with only approximately 40 edits but have such similiar editing patterns and tendencies particularly while he is blocked is why it seems that you are a sockpuppet for him (if not a proxy). Netscott 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if you were right about the sockpuppetry, it certainly has nothing to do with Raphael1. You're the only sockpuppet. ScottRR 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need permission to copy your userpage. By using Wikipedia you're agreeing to the Free documentation license found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and it states "to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." ScottRR 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I'm really a sockpuppet, who's sockpoppet am I? Yours, Raphael1, or someone elses? :) ScottRR 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then there's no need to blame Raphael, is there? ScottRR 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone.Timothy Usher 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'm shocked and disturbed. ScottRR 05:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No?

You're not? Well darn, I thought I'd found a new recruit for the GLBT cabal....Are you interested in signing up? I can offer you a discount at Prada and free body glitter if you join up today! :-D

On a serious note, keep me informed of any more suspicious users; I've got my eye on a couple, but I could certainly do with someone else who is more "on the front lines" watching. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh! I hate that you've yet again shut down my disruptive accounts!

"well User:Vkasdg seems to have no qualms about dragging other editors who are a bit more ethical into his ridiculous bad faith edit wars. Nice job there Mr. NYU.edu".

You assumed it was him. That's not my fault. 147.91.173.31 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually your completely idiotic actions at the time of his block was all the excuse I needed to finally seal the fate of your pathetic sockpuppets and expose you for who you were. Your edits up to this point have been so loserly. Hopefully, if your last message on Essjay's talk page is any indications you'll stop wasting everyone's time and actually try to benefit Wikipedia from here on out. Your editing really sunk to a new low when you impersonated User:Raphael1 and dragged him into your pathetic editing games. Netscott 07:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"You're edits up to this point have been so loserly" Well you're assuming that I've made no constructive edits, but that's because you're unable to link any IP addresses I've used with the account I use to make constructive edits. I didn't impersonate anyone - you assumed it was him and was foolish of you to do so. I told you myself that I was not Raphael. You chose not to believe Raphael101, again, because you're always so suspicious. 147.91.173.31 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You logic is truly pathetic... get a clue, regging User:Raphael101 wasn't impersonation? Get a life already. Netscott 07:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

lmao...the person who always "happens" to be online when I make some edits is telling me to get a life? Priceless. 147.91.173.31 07:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Next time you start screwing with the cartoons images you can be sure that you'll be shut down rather quickly... it seems I'm starting to develop a bit of an inside track on combatting your nonsense. Netscott 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If I continue, I'll be sure to devise new methods of nonsense. But I most likely won't... :) 147.91.173.31 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you do seem to have a mild bit of intelligence so hopefully you'll refrain from idiotic editing and focus on beneficial editing as you said you would on Essjay's talk page... but I won't hold my breath. Netscott 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, you're not aware of my "good account." 147.91.173.31 07:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually been quite fun to see you get so riled up at times and wasting so much time on me, but I tire of it. 147.91.173.31 07:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, chances are better than 50/50 that I'll find it... then I'll see to it that that account is shut down as well. I'm nearly 100% sure that I've tangled with that account... and it just takes a bit of intuition to root it out. Netscott 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You want to shutdown an account that has only made good edits? LOL. You've never tangled with the account, and you never will. 147.91.173.31 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw...Arkmar and Godwalking are not me. 147.91.173.31 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You know when I say nonsense, I mean nonsense. :-) Netscott 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

;-)

Normally, I don't let my blood pressure get that high. --BostonMA 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

removed my db

Sorry, seemed like someone had duplicated content for no reason. Quick fingers I guess ;) porges 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work!

Hello Netscott. I just want to commend you on your excellent work on the " Muhammed cartoons" Were you get your strength to deal with all the s*** some of the more disruptive elements on Wikipedia throw your way is a mystery to me, but I sure am glad that someone makes sure that even "hot topics" like the "Muhammed cartoons" stay objective and informative. Best of Wishes The.valiant.paladin 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Timothy Usher 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much fellas. It takes a lot of work to combat the extremely disruptive elements on that article (and others) but I believe strongly in the right to free speech and consider this doing my part to support such a right. I fear that if efforts aren't made in support of such freedoms, they will begin to wither and die and the world will start to approach a de-facto Orwellian state with creativity and expression becoming more and more suppressed particularly when individuals are forced to self-censor due to threats from extremist and violent elements. Netscott 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BNP

Netsott, I appreciate your concerns, but, because the image is Fair use image (as I understand it) I can not censor it or alter it in any way, just make it a low-res image so it cannot be re-distributed. If I am wrong I will change it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually

I don't see a 3RR vio (I see 3 reversions). Also, I wasn't heeding his words. I was going to unblock anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Actually if it happens again, I'd recommend posting to the administrator's noticeboard about it if you haven't tried that route already. AIAV can be useful but it's not really meant for long term problems. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. It's a good way to give admins a "heads up" on stuff like that so people are more informed than I was. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Allah = God

Will it be enough if I show a quote from Maimonides? --Aminz 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Are you a jew? I don't think so, because you don't know Maimonides. --Aminz 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/novak.html --Aminz 06:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See this: http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=255&o=2400

Jews can enter mosques but not churchs. --Aminz 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you passed 3RR on Depictions of Muhammad (not that I will report it) --Aminz 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Your last edit is fine with me. thx. --Aminz 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad too. But please note that I compromised. --Aminz 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

True, we both compromised :) --Aminz 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please allow Aminz to continue to improve wikipedia in this way. Allah is from al-ilah "the god" and simply means God as opposed to [a] god. There's no issue here. He's just translating Arabic terms into English, the language in which these articles are supposed to be written.

The other objector, if you're wondering, is Anonymous editor. I'd tried to do this several weeks ago, only to have him revert. As he's an admin (and only for that reason), I conceded. For obvious reasons, Aminz is more likely to be allowed to do it than I. It is the right thing to do. There are kinds of things Jews, Christians and Muslims can dispute, but this Allah/God thing is a needless controversy, reflecting only misunderstanding.Timothy Usher 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Anonymous Editor!, If you are a native speaker of English then you know that generally speaking the word God for the average speaker sooner refers to the Christian concept of god. I absolutely believe that what Aminz is doing is 100% detrimental to Wikipedia in that readers are less likely to learn of Allah and what that name means in the context of Islam. Netscott 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion's moved here, I move from Aminz' page: How do you hold the meanings of "God" and "Allah" to differ? Keep in mind, too, that Arabic language Bibles use Allah for God, with no associated controversy.Timothy Usher 08:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mention other languages when we're discussing the English wikipedia! Why are you limiting yourself only to the Abrahamic concepts of God? Netscott 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Because these are Abrahamic religions with a shared concept of God. And as you say, we are trying not to mention other languages in the articles where it's avoidable; translations are always preferred.Timothy Usher 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I admit and I understand that you should get that impression. I apologize, but this issue is exteremely important to me. Maybe you haven't encounter with people who say "Allah" is "Satan". I will bear the sin of breaking a compromise on my shoulder. --Aminz 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. Please see my comments on Aminz's talk. &#0151; JEREMY 08:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you saw the truth. I broke my compromise. My english is not good. I apologize. --Aminz 08:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I want to cover my breaking of my compromise, but you were the first who broke the compromise in action: [7] --Aminz 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which bad faith? We compromised on that article. I later broke my compromise. What do you mean by "bad faith" ? You reminded me of this issue on another article and I did as we compromised but you were the one who broke the compromise in action.--Aminz 09:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You broke the compromise at 7:51 and I broke it at 8:14. You were the first to break the compromise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeremygbyrne&diff=50711520&oldid=50403179 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_warrior&diff=next&oldid=50709869 --Aminz 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am losing my trust in you too. I compromised with you on that particular article. Later you objected to my edits on another article. I changed it according to the compromise we already had(there was no need to enter into a revert war again). But you broke the compromise. My later breaking of the compromise was, I admit bad. But I really thought I have compromised with you on that particular article at that time. --Aminz 09:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not accept your accusation. I just did wrong once and it was when I broke my compromise on the talk page of Jeremy. That's it. --Aminz 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The same for you! I admit I did wrong once and only once. I think you did wrong once but you are not admitting it.(though I admit mine was worst) --Aminz 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell everybody everything you want. I have one master and he is God and I am only responsible to God and not anybody else. Honor is in the hands of God and not you. --Aminz 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, This is far too dramatic. Wikipedia is no cause for Kyrie Eleisons.

We can simply agree - as we have - that quotes are not to be altered, and that the standards we are proposing are to applied only to WP original text.Timothy Usher 10:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I really meant what I said. Maybe I am again impulsive. I agree with your suggestion. I am going to sleep now. Goodnight everybody--Aminz 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Discordian Apple

The Discordian Apple here is the Arabic-titled POV forks themselves. Their very existence ensures that there is no adequate answer. You are fighting over the apple, and over previous fights over the apple, without realizing that the problem was put to us by third parties.Timothy Usher 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I don't begrudge you for being upset about it, but you are misconstruing Amin's character. He breaks deals (are you listening Amin?) because he is impulsive and chaotic, not because he is ill-motivated and evil. Criticize it, it's easy, but there's no need to misconstrue it.Timothy Usher 10:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz is not evil. He's young and not quite sure of what he believes, though he has had a strict Shi'a upbringing. As for the edits re Allah = God, he's absolutely right. Read the Allah article. It's just God, in Arabic. English say God, French say Dieu, Hawaiians say Akua, Arabs say Allah. Christian Arabs say Allah. Please don't revert perfectly reasonable edits and accuse him of bad intentions.

It would be kind, and conducive to polite discourse, if you reverted your edit and apologized to him. Zora 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zora. I actually did wrong once when I broke my compromise. I apologized for that but I and Netscott have further diagreements. Diagreements may always happen (and will happen) naturally. --Aminz 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott,

I was thinking today about our story on the other day. When I put myself in your shoes and tried to analyse them from your perspective, something I didn't do before, I realized that you are very right to be very angry of me. Please accept my apology. I am still young and prone to making mistakes. I will promise to never edit the depiction of Muhammad. I learned a lot from this --Aminz 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

If you assumed good faith, and read both articles from a Neutral perspective, you will find that one contains significantly better text than the other, and also contains an image appropriate to the article. Stop stalking! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The image at present is of a Pilgrim, thats why its there. I was looking for neutral PD images, what do you thing of This one?--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's Block

Hey Netscott. Timothy violated the 3rr on the Isa page and that's why he was blocked. As soon as it was unprotected (6 hours later) he fully reverted to his version for the fourth time in 24 hours. [8]. I mentioned this 3rr violation on the talk page of the Isa article in case you are wondering about it.It's a clear 3rr rule violation. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter and shouldn't be a problem. Admins are following the page already and Sean Black pointed out that Tim reverted to his version as soon as it was unprotected thus violating 3rr. The block should have been much longer since Tim does this a lot. Look at the history of the page. Edit warring over your own arbitrarily changed and controversial version when there is clearly a conversation going on, and then doing it as soon as the page is unprotected is very wrong. The whole point should be to give him a break from doing that. Maybe agreement can be reached before he starts reverting again. That's all I want to point out and give to this block. No one should be defending him for reverting to a controversial version which is not encyclopedic when it's still going on. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Resid did not mean anything negative by 'troublemaker'. It was just something used for the lack of a better/more appropriate word like "initiator of this dialogue". I am sure he appreciates your valuable input and is joking about you being a detective. Also please consider that he offered you an olive branch so he's not trying to get into an argument. I'll communicate with him and make sure that he does not say anything offensive. Netpari 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GA disagreement

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Kafziel 15:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Kafziel 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. Kafziel 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For an official policy page with the same content as the one I posted for you, see the entry for "Talk page vandalism" at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Kafziel 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

What archive did you move my warnings to? Kafziel 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow the history, genius. Netscott 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Kafziel 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)