User talk:IronDuke/Archive 2

2007 talk from User:IronDuke

Mediation
Re your offer to mediate Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Senior Military College, I'll be glad to participate. Not sure this qualifies as "mediate-worthy", but I'll do my part to help sort it out. Cheers Rillian 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I posted this, certainly I will participate.Todd Gallagher 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

205.202.240.194,
the range block expired, but don't hesitate to block it (if you can) if vandalism continues. -- Drini 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Quiverfull
Thank you for stepping in with your offer to mediate the conflict at Quiverfull. It appears that just your introductory presence immediately effected the compromise solution I was seeking with the user that prompted my request. Pretty cool, I think, and a great argument for the mediation project. I will be sure to re-enlist the project should the need arise. Please let me know if you need any type of support in the WP community in any way. I'd be more than happy to lend my voice. Thanks again for stepping up to the plate! :-)

CyberAnth 08:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. I'll wait a bit and see if Gkrdeacon replies. If not, I'll delist.
 * IronDuke 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA, and for your positive comments about my contribution history. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. Thanks again, Jakew 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Flashdance
The reviews on IMDb were mentioned since they contrast with the generally poor reviews given to the film by professional critics. It was not intended to hype IMDb in any way. It goes without saying that people's opinions about a film are not a scholarly source. Flashdance has grossed over $150 million at the box office even though it was panned by the critics. However, the section that has been removed will not be put back.--Ianmacm 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The location for the audition sequence at the end of the film has been put back. This is the most famous scene in the film, and it is useful to know that it was filmed at a real building rather than in a studio. Most of Flashdance was filmed on location in Pittsburgh, but this is the only location mentioned by name in the article due to its key importance in the film.--Ianmacm 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. For myself, I thought the location for one scene info was kind of trivial. But no biggie if it stays. As for IMDB, it's a great site, but anyone can leave a review, which makes it less than reliable on that score. There's no doubt the film was popular; I'm sure myriad reliable sources exist that back up that claim. Thanks for leaving a note. IronDuke  16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re the woodhull article
Thank you for explaining the COI policy again. Before 3RR, I asked that editor to place the proposed edits on the talk page instead, and avoid the article page for a little while, and then when the proposal is on the talk page, I or someone else can open an RFC to get some disinterested eyes on the issue. At this point I do not expect my own input to go very far. If you think this is a good approach, would you reiterate my request at the user's talk page? — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me see how Vweston responds to me, if at all. If she seems amenable to working along with other users and gaining consensus and proceeding from there, RfC might well be the way to go and I will urge her to consider it, and failing that to at least be responsive on talk. Cheers. IronDuke  02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks IronDuke!
Greetings!

Thanks for you note. I appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts and I agree the "rough and tumble" comments and treatment by most of the folks I encountered was quite a surprise. As I stated to JuJube, I believed the founders of this group intended users, editors, admins to be more respectful and courteous to one another. To be honest, I felt like I had fallen into a cyperspace black hole and was in a cheap chatroom. It was a creepy feeling.

Yet, there was one other individual kind enough to also show me the way during the storm.

None the less, glad to meet another Victoria Woodhull fan! I will heed your advice and attempt a revision sometime in the coming days. As for America's Victoria reviews, the most significant was the one that I posted by The American Journal of History - considered to be a very respected literary journal and quite an honor. As someone stated to me, I was supposed to have verifible links, so I had linked it to the American Journal, but somehow, that may have been interpeted as "news about me". It isn't.

As for my own article, I have an editor friend who is going to rewrite accordingly. When initially posted, I should have listened to my intuition and input "rough draft" or something.

I look forward to communicating with you in the future. I hope to contribute to the psychic phenomena, parapsychology and related topics. I was disapointed that a friend and colleage Jeffrey Mishlove's biography was removed. I did see and agree with the admins/editors that it was "resume format," but he is the first person to ever receive a degree in parapsychology from Berkeley university and has contributed significantly to the world of psi. I know that I and others would like to see his name on the walls of history here.

Thanks again! Enjoy your day, Victoria Vweston3554 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Block of 24.168.112.182
You did well in warning this user but they did not vandalize after that warning, so they are not to be blocked for the moment. If they transgress the last warning in the next 24 hours then yes they shall be blocked. Report to me or WP:AIV if you see more vandalism from this user. Thanks for your good work. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship
 

 Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings IronDuke!
I'm back! Life has been busy and I've not had much free time to return. I'm looking forward to exploring the para sites to contribute as well as posting my own bio. If you can, check out my new External Link on Victoria Woodhull page. I noticed that another contributor had also posted a REVIEW from the Journal of American History. thanks so much! Victoria


 * You're very welcome. I've been sick and busy with work and unable to edit for a while. But I will check it out. Cheers. IronDuke  01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery revised lead proposal
Dear IronDuke, as an interested editor would you please offer your opinion at article 62 on the talk page re this proposal. DavidYork71 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA
In your withdrawal note, you thanked the supporters and opposers, but you forgot to mention the neutral users, like me - I feel offended. Kidding. I just wanted to let you know that aside from the RfAr issue, I see no reason not to support you in a future RfA. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kncyu38, thanks so much for your note. Dang gone it, I did forget the neutrals. So... thanks to the three of you as well. Hope to see you around the 'pedia. IronDuke  00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Next time. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  09:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about hamas
Allo. I didn't want to ask this on the CFD page (largely because I've already yammered too much there in a section that really ought to be more concise), but I did still want to know about this. It was my understanding that, obviously, many in hamas hate judaism in general, and that the general policy of hamas is to fight against Israel, but I wasn't able to find the sweeping core policy that hamas has against judaism as a whole. I know you said it was in the article, but I'm not finding the core tenets that mandate irrefutably that every single member of hamas must be an antisemite. Couldja help me out? (on your talk page or mine) Bladestorm 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

List of The Wire episodes
Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

question for you
"Okay, I'm starting to wonder if this is just an elaborate joke on your part. But just in case it isn't, no "government" POV-pushing is tolerated here, whether it be US, Israeli, PA, etc" - no US government pushing eh? see Iran, North Korea, Vietnam War, Move America Forward, George W Bush, Republican Party (United States), etc, etc.. then come back and say the same thing --Asucena 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts

 * The facts in the Kriss Donald case are true. It would be interesting

to see you prove that his eyes were not gouged out etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.50.179 (talk)


 * I cannot prove a negative. If you have a good source for what you're trying to put in (newspaper, book, magazine), please tell me; I'll help you put in the info if I can. IronDuke  23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You claimed to know a negative a few hours earlier. Don't you mind contradicting yourself, (personal attack removed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.232.69 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you aren't quite grasping what "prove a negative means." I can explain further if you're not clear on the point. IronDuke  12:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=81002
 * http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.232.69 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks very much for providing those sources; I was not aware of those details. Unfortunately, problems remain. If you take a look at WP:Reliable Sources, you'll see that blogs are almost never allowed as sources (some exceptions apply). Also, the BNP site could be an authority on itself, but not on any other subject, just as, say, the Labour website would not be a reliable source on anything other than itself. Can you find me some citations from British newspapers or reputable magazines that support the maiming, gouging, castration, etc. allegations? If you can, I'll see if I can't put in a section on it. Oh, and you might think about a) getting an account here: people who do are taken much more seriously and b) sigining all your posts with four tildes like so: ~ . Cheers. IronDuke  23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The death certificate is available to the public from the Scottish authorities.


 * Well, that's a good start. Can you point to a reliable source that quotes it? IronDuke  18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)




 * If you want to go ahead and get that and scan it (I assume it's public domain--do you know the laws?), and it supports your contentions, I think we might be able to get it in the article. IronDuke  12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure
This one was rather obvious, I'm afraid. -- Avi 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000 Zeq 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR report
Yes, I'm aware of the history. However, when considering a 3RR report, we don't simply interpret the rule mechanically. In an extremely technical sense, the 3RR may have indeed been violated. However, what I saw in that case did not appear to be an attempt to edit war disruptively. Especially when a report involves someone adding fact tags, I get a bit skeptical. Fact tags are useful and good, and call attention to the need for a particular bit of information to be referenced. (If the information is already covered by an existing reference, you can use the "ref name" functionality, it's excellent in cases where a single reference is to be used in more than one place.) The intent of the 3RR is to stop sterile edit wars and disruption, and I didn't see that happening. Hopefully everyone can get a good version hammered out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Mall
I added a lot more information to this article recently, and I kindly ask that you take another look at it if you haven't already. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your Welcome message
Thank you for your message. The edit I made on the Guantanamo Bay seems to be in accordance with the policy pages of Wikpedia. The tag: "Detainees subject to cruel treatment upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002" is describing the image. If you do not agree, I am more than willing of discussing this with you. Do you think it is a personal opinion? I am willing to arrange and agreement on this. If you did not notice, the detainees are in a painful position. I have changed the tag to : "Detainees forced into painful positions upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002"

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting that IP troll on my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note
I didn't enjoy it as much as your playlet, but thanks for sending on your thoughts. I agree with your (implied) statement that not all antisemites are open about their feelings, and that some find Israel's human-rights offenses a convenient vehicle for the covert expression if same. That said, I have not been much impressed with those you credit with a "knack" for sniffing out these closet bigots. I guess I've seen them one too many times use this mysterious skill for other purposes, such as the strategic smearing of innocent and intelligent editors with whom they hope to get the upper hand. A couple of times in particular, that's happened on a truly spectacular scale, and when the offending editors refused to back down or own up to their attempts at character assassination, I was left with an impression of their intellectual dishonesty that is not likely to come out in the wash anytime soon.

I didn't know what the hell to make of the comments about me being "tainted," but I don't much like to see anyone at the bottom of a dogpile.

Take care. Maybe you have that "knack" in a purer form ;) – what do I know.--G-Dett 18:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ironduke
I realized I left two of your questions unanswered. Regarding Kiyosaki's remark that he thought quoting a "Jewish newspaper" (The Forward) on the Carter controversy might cause a POV-problem, yes this is the sort of remark that pricks up my ears and raises my eyebrows and flares my nostrils. But this sort of thinking unfortunately is pretty common on WP; for example there are editors here who argue, on exactly the same lines, that the Journal of Palestine Studies shouldn't be taken seriously. It's also worth noting that The Forward is, indeed, a Jewish newspaper; describing it as such, that is, is completely different from describing, say, The New Republic as a "Jewish magazine." Sorry if that's belaboring the obvious; it's just that the way you keep putting "Jewish newspaper" in quotes when you're talking about Kiyosaki leads me to think there might be some confusion on that point.

Homey was before my time. I don't know anything about him, having never dug up the diffs and disputes. I am vaguely aware that his scalp is held aloft in the same manner as Kiyosaki's. When I spoke of innocent, self-evidently good-faith, intelligent and courteous editors being smeared by those who believed overmuch in their rat-sniffing knack, I had in mind people like Mackan79, ChrisO (see second comment within diff), and any number of others.

Take care,--G-Dett 16:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi IronDuke, I ran across your comment on G-Dett's page. While these probably aren't issues best discussed in a public forum, I'll at least add a word or two.  For one thing, I think you should know that I did not follow the particular editor to either of those pages.  The evidence for this was provided at the time, so I won't re-belabor it here.  More to the point, I guess my thought is to fully agree with you that people should give a long hard look to editors' work that they find problematic.  In some recent instances, that has unfortunately not been the case.  Instead, people become angry, or indifferent, and as anonymous editors on the internet simply let loose comments about private Wikipedia editors that I have to think even the most hawkish would under their own names generally keep to themselves.   This is, I think, a concern, and the one that G-Dett was raising.  To consider and act accordingly is one thing, but to make wild accusations, and then in some instances not even stick around to support them or apologize is another.  I must say it's also something I'm a bit surprised you would use those words to defend ("I don't know if IronDuke is a bigot, but I do know..."  Seriously?).


 * I'll leave it there for now; ultimately I'd much rather talk about the encyclopedia. If there is any edit I have made that concerns you, please let me know.  Regards, Mackan79 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ID, I'm afraid I don't see what it is you'd like to discuss on wiki or why. The fact is you keep saying you don't mean anything by your comments; if that's true, let me again suggest that asking whether someone has thoughts so private they don't want them shared does not come across well, nor suggesting that they appeared annoyed in a very open and polite email.  As I said, if you have a specific problem about a particular edit, please let me know.  If there is a personal discussion you'd like to have, please feel free to email me.  Thanks, Mackan79 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IronDuke, I'm not trying to misinterpret you, I'm only trying to say that I think a private discussion of any personal issues is more useful than a public one which is prone to these types of misunderstandings. My email to you was an attempt to show my good faith; I think good faith is something that can be shown privately in a way that doesn't seem to work so well in a public forum.  Of course we're still strangers, but at least you know I'm not deliberately misinterpreting you then, or know that I am if my statements are later inconsistent.  This is only one issue, but I think it's important.  Anyway, I'm not insisting on a private conversation about anything, merely saying I would be open to it.  Otherwise, perhaps we're stuck with the imperfect communication that Wikipedia gives us, and consequently a more limited discussion, but I think that's probably fine as well.  Best, Mackan79 20:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid
While you are not a party and did not make a statement on the above case, I noticed several incivil comments made by you in relation to it, and presented evidence and a finding of fact with regards to them. Just so you aren't taken unawares. Picaroon (t) 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's an interesting manner in which to defend yourself - by attacking me. If you've never encountered me before, where did this accusation of incivility on my part come from? I don't deny that I've slipped up on multiple occasions, because I have, but at least I recognize it and apologize.


 * Moving on. I'm not targeting you, and indeed I don't think I'd heard of you before this case. I noticed the #Accusations of anti-semitism section on the workshop, so I took the diffs of what appear-to-be incivil comments made by you and created an evidence section on the subject. (This is because the arbitrators have indicated evidence should be on the evidence page, and proposals on the workshop page; mixing them together makes things confusing.) In case you were under the impression contact with you was a necessity to present evidence, please see Arbitration policy. Picaroon (t) 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. The fact that you were one of only two people whose comments I've provided evidence on so far is simply because I saw your diffs referenced in the accusation of anti-semitism section and thought it was worth a linkable section on the evidence page. If it was ChrisO, or Urthogie, or anyone else, I would've created a section on them. Picaroon (t) 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I a) find the time and b) find multiple applicable diffs/comments, then yes, anyone significantly involved in this disupute who I feel has made incivil comments or assumed bad faith without basis will have a section. Picaroon (t) 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I read some of Centralized discussion/Apartheid, but that was a while ago, and I read part of the Chinese one in response to a link yesterday or so. Other than those two, no, I haven't read the talk pages. I'm just trying to speed along the arbitration case, that being a thing some of us clerks who aren't actually clerking a specific case sometimes pitch in with. One way to speed a case along is to provide evidence. Picaroon (t) 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One, I haven't made you a party. Two, how is my evidence prosecutorial? I'm simply listing diffs and my interpretation of them. Three, it helps the arbitrators to have concise evidence sections because the less fluff there is, the easier it is to analyze what actually happened. If the arbitrators disagree on your conduct, the decision is theirs. And finally, where are these accusations of "less-than-civil contributions" coming from? I thought I was an editor that you have "never...encountered before". May I see some diffs? Picaroon (t) 02:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Islam by country edit was jesting, actually - would a ":-)" next to it have assuaged your concerns? As to using the words "bias" and "unhelpful," they're just shorter ways to say "non neutral point of view" and "not relevant to the article." I'll try to use the latter two phrases instead of the former words if it will make you happy. As to the IP, if you look at his talk page, you'll notice not only me but several other editors had been trying unsuccessfully to make contact with him. If I recall correctly, his first comment at all came after my query about which language he spoke, so, contrary to your assertion, it wasn't "clear" that he spoke English. Just because Nigeria was colonized by Great Britain doesn't mean all 140 million people speak English.


 * As to your question, your comments makes me think I don't even want to click those talk pages. I guess I'll have to leave the evidence at you and Sefringle. Picaroon (t) 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration policy says it all, really. "Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves." As to the "backing away" of mine which you are "puzzled" about, its quite simple. I don't want to have this discussion with twenty other people who are concerned that I'm singling them out. Picaroon (t) 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, except I'm not clerking this case. Newyorkbrad is. I mentioned clerks because, as I said, one of the things we sometimes do in cases where we aren't clerking is helping the case move along by presenting evidence.


 * On another note, I think we've both realized we aren't going to be able to convince eachother of much. I'll go on with my plans to present further evidence, and you can go on participating in the case or ignoring it as you please. Picaroon (t) 03:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ironduke
I added the word "pro-israel neoconservative". This is not a controversial statement as Mr. Pipes is a neo-conservative and he is PRO-Israel.

what do you disgree about ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple pie 20 20 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dinner
They better not call me late for it! ;-) Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Nation ?!
Thanks for your wisdom and sanity on that difficult and controversial page. As you probably know (if you looked on my user page) that I'm not a Zionist, so I will not fight for Zionism; but I will fight anti-Zionism which I see as anti-Semitism on the most part with few exceptions.

I'm trying to stay out of this debate and would hope that Tiamut would do the same; but I bet it won't happen as this is her Raison d'être for being on Wikipedia.

Even though we probably disagree on many things including this; I've gotten to respect your approach. Interesting that your proposal for compromise fell on deaf ears and has already been drowned out and forgotten. Itzse (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not very nice
Hi IronDuke. I thought I would let you know that I saw your message here and I have left my own message at Nat's page here. I would appreciate it if in the future, you would discuss any issues you have with my editing with me directly. Filing informal 3RR complaints at talk pages of admins without notifying people of what you are doing, is not very nice. I know I'm not witty and all, but I am responsive. :) T i a m u t  17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tiamut, I’m very sorry if you were offended by my post (hard to convey tone online, so please not there is no tinge of sarcasm in that). I wasn’t trying to get you blocked (note I did not post to 3RR or request that you be blocked), and will color myself surprised if you are. What I was pointing out was that a user involved in an edit war got blocked, while the person or persons with whom he was edit-warring did not. Do you honestly think—and I mean this as a serious question—do you honestly think it was fair for Armon to get blocked for three reverts within 24 hours, while you did not for 5 reverts in 29 hours, both of you reverting on the same article?


 * I may be in a minority, but I have no problem with the idea that Middle East articles are going to be the source of friction, and a fair amount of reversion. What I do have a problem with is when a POV pusher throws a bogus 3RR report against the wall against an editor he’s at war with to see if it will stick, and an admin gives out a block to one side of the war, without apparently giving the matter much consideration. Edit wars on ME topics will happen, but blocks and arbcom are not the solution. I really don’t mind POV-pushing on the articles—well, I do mind, but in a different way than I mind people trying to twist and pervert wikipedia enforcement/punishment mechanisms. Happy to discuss this further if you wish, or not if not. (And I honestly do think you are wittier than you let on. ;) ) IronDuke  17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I pretty much answered this post via what I posted at Nat's talk page in response to your followup post there. I prefer not to use two pages to continue the discussion on edit warring, so feel free to respond there (though poor Nat must be wondering what the hell he/she got into it - aaaah the Middle East articles - it's like real life. No one wants to touch it with a ten foot pole. Can anyone really blame them? Even the wisdom of Solomon couldn't entangle such a mess) And thanks for stroking my ego, but it's not necessary. I know I'm not funny. T i a <font color="#800000">m <font color="#B93B8F">u <font color="#800000">t  19:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

funny
So, i can make a personal attack whenever i want? and it only has to be funny? oh boy oh boy oh boy!

sorry about that 96.232.87.12 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may indeed--however, I reserve the right to determine what is and is not funny, and my standards are quite, quite high. I would also urge you, before sallying for with the witticism no doubt bubbling inside you, to get a real account, and start making productive edits. IronDuke  00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please observe your own stated standards and not remove criticism of your editorial policy. Thanks. Widepants (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea what the above means, Mr. Widepants aka Alberuni, but it is not, as I have clearly requested, in any way funny. If you are in need of resources to sharpen your wit, I shall gladly provide them (unless doing so for a banned user is a violation of some kind). IronDuke  02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Arabism
(reposted from Jayjg's Talk page)

Hey, so the controversy over at Talk:Anti-Arabism seems to have died down fortunately. However, I noticed Jayjg removed banned user Alberuni's comments (struckthru by IronDuke) from the talk page. In the edit summary, Jayjg mentioned that it was done as a matter of wiki policy and Widepants took issue with that and reproduced the content. Due to the "messiness" by which the content was reproduced, I reverted back to the talk page prior to your sanitization. I tried to find the policy referring to removing talk page content of banned users, but was unable to do so. If the policy is clear, it'd help keep the peace by providing a link to where it is expressly written. I recognize that Jayjg is an administrator and don't doubt that such a policy exists, I'm just looking for some clarity on the matter. Thanks a lot. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Subsequently, I've noticed that Widepants appears to be in a cross-article edit war with IronDuke on the userpage of Amaliq, another participant in the controversial ongoing debate on Talk:Anti-Arabism. Suffice it to say this is getting complicated. Both Amaliq & Widepants accounts have been created within the past couple months, although they are both clearly well-informed of wikipedia's policies. As this is a common trait of Sockpuppetry & single-purpose accounts, I was hoping Jayjg could weigh in at Talk:Anti-Arabism, a dialogue that I'd genuinely like to see stabilized. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I could really use some help in Talk:Anti-Arabism. Please stick your head in if you get a chance. - CheshireKatz (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)