User talk:Netscott/Archive-06

The five pillars of Wikipedia | How to edit a page | Help pages | Tutorial | Manual of Style | Wikipedian Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part. Archive-01 &bull; Archive-02 &bull; Archive-03 &bull; Archive-04 &bull; Archive-05

Please help
Hi Scott, This is Mystìc here, I've been blocked as a sockpuppet account of user:Lahiru_k, you've known me and you know for sure that my account is not a sockpuppet account. Please help me please.. 222.165.157.129 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mystìc, I'll take a look at what's going on and see how I might be able to be of assistance. (→ Netscott ) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bremelanotide
I think I got it. It was the easy case, and seemed pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you find anything went wrong. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Netscott,

Could you please have a look at this --Aminz 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. I was about to do something like that :) I need to run now. Cheers, --Aminz 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for moving that. --Aminz 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Their accusations is getting more and more annoying.

Can I open an RfC over the article rather than over particular editors? --Aminz 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to have 3 comment on users but all together, since they are related. I don't think I can do that. Can I? --Aminz 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. I didn't notice that. Thanks --Aminz 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks. I'll start doing that. I need to gather the diffs. etc. etc. --Aminz 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5...
...is up at MfD. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5. Thought you'd like to know. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
You have NO right to post my ISP on MY userpage. It is totally unprovoked intimidation and probably illegal. You will be reported to Wiki Adminis immediately. Actions have consequences and you shall face them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know what youre talking about where's your evidence. You are harassing me for no reason and will be reported to administrators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)


 * Anyone can have access to that information, there is a small [IPinfo] link at the bottom of each IP talk page. I just post it on the talk page to help quickly identify problem editors who keep contravening Wikipedia policies like yourself. (→ Netscott ) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Hindu Caste System from Muslim Caste System
The article Indian Caste System is doing injustice against all other religions becaue Hindus have a strong Caste system based on religion. In India Islam is polluted by Hindus who converted to Islam but carried their Hindu Caste. But there is major difference between the two religions. Islam and our Holy Bokks do not support Caste System. Hindu Religion and its texts preached caste system. So we need to separate the Indian Caste System according to religions.Iqbal123 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking?
What is the basis for characterizing this as votestack spamming? In fact, I had already voted on the matter in question, but I don't see how anyone who didn't know me intimately could predict how I would have voted on this. Are you sure that this person was accessing only those he or she believed would be on one side of the issue? - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't examine his/her edits at all. Just remarking if this person was actually intending to stack on this matter, then they were foolish to include me. Did you look at my comments in the debate in question? - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, looking at those edits, I see no sign of votestacking. I would expect the people contacted to have a wide range of views on the matter; many had already commented, and unless I am mistaken, you will not find any particular pattern in their views.
 * While this was clearly redundant, in that most of these people were clearly already aware of the discussion, I don't see any effort here to get a vote for one or the other side. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, from what I can see, this person pretty much conformed to WP:SPAM. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Netscott, I don't particularly think it's a big issue either but, for example, would you also want to block IZAK for doing pretty much the same with reference to the same discussion? I hope not. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, it looked to me from whom he contacted that he was contacting people who had worked in this area and with no particular apparent bias in whom he was contacting. I certainly understand your concern, but I would have assumed good faith here. The block apparently came so quickly after the warning that he or she quite possibly never even saw the warning.
 * Again, no big deal. Your initial comment accused this person of "votestack spamming", and I saw no particular reason to think the characterization was accurate. That was my issue, nothing larger. - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking delete
I don't need you as my personal spam guard on my talk page, thankyou, and prefer to evaluate vote requests on a case-by-case basis. -- Kendrick7talk 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk page
Please do not remove postings from my talk page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete content off my talk page
It is considered vandalism to do so. If you have something to say add it, don't delete what other people have written just because you disagree with it. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tnavbar header
Your updated version Tnavbar-header2 actually looks like it fixed a bug in IE6 of Tnavbar-header -- I'm sure having to do with IE6's busted box model... :) Just never noticed since I primarily use FF.   At work so only able to test with IE6 and FF2, but each example looks great right now with those browsers.  // Laughing Man 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to do this:
... but am beginning to see the need for it. We haven't met before, I believe, but you might be interested in this and this. At least, I do hope you are. Hornplease 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hornplease, actually I haven't really interacted with Bakasuprman much. His animosity towards myself stems from my stating on a WP:ANI report that I suspected him to be a sock. Also the fact that I've been supportive of BhaiSaab has put me out of favor with him. The way that Bakasuprman goes around supporting punitive actions against me is funny to me actually because other than my suspicion of sockpuppetry about him I don't hold much against him. This is the case because I've really interacted very sparingly directly with him. Because this is the case, if ever I was to be helpful relative to what you're asking me, I'd have to do quite a bit of research. Forgive me for saying so but I've only been tangentially involved with the whole Hkelkar thing and I am very hesitant to involve myself further. Does that make sense? (→ Netscott ) 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. There are enough people stumbling around on the workshop page with little enough knowledge of the overall behaviour of the editors.
 * On the other hand, it would be nice to make a stand against the creeping POV-pusher type who has infiltrated this project recently. Only reason I'm wasting so much time on it, really. Hornplease 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nowrap/Nobr
Hi again NetScott,
 * Hello David, not sure which one should stay (I like the title of your creation better) but I thought you should know of the duplication. Cheers. (→ Netscott )'' 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew of Nobr but must've forgotten about it... so, I've now moved Nobr (and docs) to Nowrap; hope Nobr's originator User:CesarB doesn't mind (have left him a pointer to here). Thanks for spotting, David Kernow (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:V?
(copied) You must have User:Oblivious's talk page watchlisted or been tracking my edits... you didn't hesitate to jump on Template:V. LOL! Very nice... :-))) (→ Netscott ) 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am creating a test template and I thought I should see how your new one works. I'm not sure I like how you have to write the switch part out 6 times but it looks pretty good.  If I can think of a way around writing it out then I will let you know but I think it is just the way it is.  I left a comment on User:Oblivious's talk page and it was still in my watchlist so I saw your comment on a new template.  Rex the first talk 10:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netscott, I tired to put this template into but I got one to many "Template:" text. In this version I had:

but it just appeared as

Template: [[Template:Fluid dynamics/Comments|view]] • Template talk: [[Template:Fluid dynamics/Comments |talk]] • [ edit]

on this page. Not sure if using works. Any ideas? Rex the first talk 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:La-Defense-is-not-part-of-P.jpg
Hoyla. I just got a message about your wonderful "clarification image" - it needs some more info for copyright purposes. Since the picture is yours, could you go and claim it as your own? This should clear things up nicely.

Thanks, and take care,

THE PROMENADER  17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:New Tnavbar concept
Excellent. This was certainly needed by many and will give them the flexibility. I'll contribute to the template :) Nice work --Oblivious 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Bias
It seems good. I was thinking of filing conduct RfC; but "systematic bias" is another option. The problem is that these editors does not always remain civil. Some of them are also very inclined to edit-war. Not sure if "systematic bias" is precisely what we need. But on the other hand, I can find reliable sources explaining the roots of this bias.

I am still away from my hometown and can not be very active in wikipedia.

Cheers, --Aminz 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to see...
I wanted to see if you're still around editing the same article. Cheers. 128.122.253.196 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I will not continue to edit the article. You are quite a nice guy. 128.122.253.229 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

template cascades
I find it difficult to appreciate that hiding away template parameters in other templates is "facilitating access". It also means watching two pagesinstead of one. But, while I don't think this is a great idea, I don't actively oppose it either (I imagine it was discussed on some ethnic group wikiproject?) dab (&#5839;) 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I see your point, and I do not object. I do in fact welcome the effect that the data is hidden from inexperienced users clicking "edit" on some ethnicity article, because this sort of tabular data is subject to a lot of uncalled-for fiddling of numbers by anonymuses. dab (&#5839;) 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Netscott. Let me just briefly point out that the Box "Template:Arab ethnicity" still has some bugs in it — e.g. if you click on the v/d/e letters in top right corner you get to wrong "Arab people" pages. Also, there's the problem that a change to that box won't be reflected in the history of the Arab page, nor is it highlighted to those people "watching" the main Arab page. As for issues regarding the contents of the box itself, this is another topic, see my discussion here and here.  Womtelo 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference converter
Hi, I've made a lot of articles with the
 * A sentence with a source.

syntax. I much prefer the contemporary reference notation we have (not because of the notation itself, but because it looks better at the bottom), but the whole convention is pretty opaque to me (it seems hard to use). If there's a way to convert these, I'd love to hear it. Thanks, '''... '''aa:talk 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References in Templates
This issue has been known for a while, but I don't think anything will be done anytime soon. Probably best to work around it. That means either In your case the template looks like it might be single-use. If so, couldn't you just put it into the article? Gimmetrow 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * use html links for citations in templates
 * put the citation text in the template, either hard-coded or with ref/note

email
I have emailed you personally regarding the issue. I'm not sure if you received it or not. MetsFan76 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Category:Anti-Semitic people
I've responded on my talk page. you can reply there if you feel the need to. Taxico 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:DAde
per the use of yet another IP i have reported him on WP:ANI here. if you have any additional information available or any other contribution, please do participate. ITAQALLAH  18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry Netscott.....I had no clue where to post that but people need to hear about this one. I almost fell off my chair laughing. MetsFan76 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag
Hi Netscott,

Please see my post to the "new antisemitism" talk page. Thanks --Aminz 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards
If my diatribes come across as "well balanced" compared to the other editors on the talk page, that is not a good sign. :) I'm a little too close to this one right now. I'm thinking I should take a look at it in a day or so, and if it's still nuts, maybe we could ask an admin to take a look. They won't jump right into content disputes, but one can go through an "arbitration" process to try to settle points of fact and other disputes. They can also take action against vandals, but I'm not sure this one quite qualifies, unless he's focused solely on this article. If that's the case, that fact could also be brought to an admin's attention. Wahkeenah 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That user is not quite an exclusively one-issue user, but has certainly done little else besides this page. Wahkeenah 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am glad for all your edits and how you've been keeping a close eye trying to maintain the quality on the page by the way. I myself am already spending way more time on that article then I'd like to, but it seems as if everytime I check there's some sort of POV-pushing (from the anti-richards camp in the beginning, then of course primarily one pro-Richards user right now) or crazy edit that degrades the article more than it helps. It drives one nuts because I want to assume good faith and I do think the individual actually thinks he's contributing, but for whatever reason just don't get (or refuse to accept) what they're doing is inappropriate... It's good to see there're several others editors who share the same neutral fact-based perspective. Tendancer 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand fully what that red-linked user "Bus stop" is getting at, but the problem is he insists that his own uncited viewpoint is sufficient. It's a never-ending loop, which is why I think it's a game he's playing, more than anything else. Aside from reverting any attempts to re-post the "laughter" stuff (for which you can request a block from an admin if it comes to that), I think the best response at this point is "stony silence". If no one answers his lengthy and repetitive essays, he'll get bored and move on. That doesn't always work, but often it does. Wahkeenah 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to that other red-linked user, "Bus stop" has a new issue to fight over now, the "body language expert". And it's trying to start a new round of debate, again with spurious reasoning. Wahkeenah 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I try to use terms like "troll" and "sockpuppet" with caution, and I haven't used them here. We had a far worse case on the "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations" page some months ago, with a user named Carfiend. That user put himself on the threshhold of being banned, but then he disappeared. I'm just saying we have to be careful with this one guy. I think he's playing a game, and have said so, but we'll see. Meanwhile, I'm trying not to directly engage him anymore. Wahkeenah 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I broke my own rule, or bent it anyway. Any guesses what its next magical trick will be? Wahkeenah 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, again. It occurred to me that its writing style was better than Bus stop's. There are several red-linked users on that page, some of whom have edited virtually nothing else, so it's a little hard to separate the real ones from the fake ones. Maybe we need to bring in a "typing language" expert. Wahkeenah 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can tell if one user is the same as another through their writing styles (to use the term generously). I ain't no expert in that field, nohow. Wahkeenah 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't ask who that banned editor is. Sounds like a touchy subject. Just tell me it's not Carfiend, and we're good. Wahkeenah 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. And you don't want to know, either. Just as I don't. :) Wahkeenah 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

trivial
From the significant to the silly. I don't know French at all. Would I be safe in translating the expression "Tenez Les Cartes" as "Hold the Cards"? This is what they called the game in the latest James Bond film, which actually appears to be a brand of poker called "Texas Hold 'Em". Wahkeenah 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism
I read the three revert rule I was referred to, you said you agree with my assessment why don't you revert the page to reflect my edits or what is you opinion on this. Do you feel I'm in the wrong here?

I'm fairly new to making anything but minor typo edits to wikipedia and hope to stick around to make some real contributions but I don't want to get in trouble over this nonsense. Arch NME 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re DAde
Hi Scott. I just thought that the IP is being used by innocent people but i'll do next time as we got no other option. -- Szvest  Ω Wiki Me Up ®  10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina
My guess would be that he is talking about you because his description of your comments matches. BhaiSaab talk 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that means a lot to me Mr. Stevenson. BhaiSaab talk 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your logic makes sense. But, I would have a problem with the deletion of his article for these reasons:
 * News sources describe him as a internationally celebrated Islamic scholar and orator.
 * We know he's real because up and around people.
 * He isn't an internet personality like Ali Sina. An active user of the internet can garner a significant number of Google results simply by active participation in online communities. One of my screenames, for example, that I have so far only seen myself use, gets thousands of Google results. That doesn't make me notable by any means. "Netscott" gets over 9,000 results. I'm sure you know what I mean.
 * The country of his origin is primarily not English. That gives Ali Sina an advantage in the English Google results and I'm sure there are reliable sources about Naik in Indian languages (I can't read them), but they are out there. BhaiSaab talk 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is quite a good suggestion. The only thing I'm worried about is that I might not even be here by that time, but I will follow your advice. BhaiSaab talk 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just also found that Naik is the author of at least five books. I'm surprised that isn't mentioned in the article. BhaiSaab talk 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will take that as a compliment. Yes I followed that. :D BhaiSaab talk 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl accused me of following CltFn to five articles...yet Karl just followed me to about 20 articles. BhaiSaab talk 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party
Ah, yes, I forgot to add the banner. Thanks for catching that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re sprotecting Template:Tnavbar
Hi Scott,
 * Thanks David for doing that... I wanted to request that of you but as you've been involved in editing on it I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. Please don't hesitate to full protect should the need arise. (→ Netscott )'' 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the recent addition-removal and suddenly realized some protection seemed appropriate; in case anyone does feel someone else should've protected the template, I'll ask someone else to pay a visit to confirm or unprotect. Yours, David (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that it might not be correct'' to protect so please don't feel as though I was prodding you. I think sprotecting it is no-brainer myself. I must admit to dreading the thought of it ever being full protected without myself being in a position to work on it directly but I'm fully cognizant of the needs of the project easily outweighing such a relatively minor inconvienience.
 * Worry not; no such implication occurred to me! If, sadly, full protection does arise, leave me (a pointer to) any edits you'd wish to make; by then it may be worth returning the template to semi-protected anyhow.


 * Also, you're welcome to respond here only if you'd prefer. Thanks again. (→ Netscott )'' 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I copy posts so I can follow a thread in one place – at least, that's the theory!
 * Chuckle, David (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina
Is it not AFD convention to put the vote results at the top of the page when the discussion is closed? If so then please restore the results that I added.--CltFn 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice
Thanks very much. I am aware that I have made 3 reverts. Jayjg argued that Stillman's quote doesn't refer to antisemitism because new-antisemitism started 6 years ago among Muslims. That's a pretty informative comment. I really didn't know that. I am not edit warring. Slimvirgin said that there was a confusion otherwise I wouldn't have added it again.--Aminz 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg is on my side. I am adding his comment almost word by word. --Aminz 07:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you think the comment was not true? It might be at least true according to some scholars. I am waiting for Jayjg's sources. But sure, I will not add it again before consensus has achieved. --Aminz 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not add it again. --Aminz 07:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Netscott, but there are people who are not really interested in reasoning. There are people who write things against the consensus of academic scholars. I am not saying they should be silenced but that's a pretty good term. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Aminz 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I need to get some sleep right now and so I can't fully get into discussing this but I see the word sooner as a tool to silence critics. I don't like such usage of language. People need to be free to openly (and validly) criticize without fear of being branded an "islamophobe" or a "new antisemite" which these terms do not tend to allow for. (→ Netscott ) 07:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to admit it because I'm not much of a fan of Ali Sina's style in his criticisms of Islam (I think he frequently relies on hate in his arguments which I absolutely abhor) but much of what he says here save for the Muslim bashing I agree with. (→ Netscott ) 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudoph
Peace to you Netscott --

This Washington Post article suggests he had a connection in the early 1980s with a group called the "Church of Israel," seemingly a racist strain of Christian practice that served as a stepping stone to Christian Identity. He was, of course, eventually to become a "lone wolf," which means acting alone and practicing plausible denials if caught... peace out, BYT 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallout and Fallout 2
Stop reverting good faith edits on the Fallout and Fallout 2 articles. You are undermining the values of Wikipedia. Go revert some vandalism and stop wasting time. Air of reality 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Netscott, what makes you think is a sockpuppet of a banned user? --  tariq abjotu  23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know too. All I did was edit the Fallout page as I am a fan of the game and made an account to edit it, and all of a sudden he begins reverting my good faith edits!  Even if I was a sockpuppet, why would he be reverting meaningful edits?  That seems to go... against what Wikipedia is about. Maybe he should wait until I actually vandalize something before making rash decision? Air of reality 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy...
Reverting good faith edits and undermining the values of Wikipedia based on the ability of users to edit pages and improve them. You have spent many hours wasting your time trying to revert my efforts when all I have wanted to do is improve wikipedia, and this all stemmed from the evidence that I "vandalized" the Michael Richards article, when I really wasn't. And by the way, Mactabbed and Maior aren't the same person. Nice try though. Ad hominem2 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

12 angry men
why did you revert my edit on the 12 angry men page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Muck Raker (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * You are such an idiot. You don't even realize that you are HURTING wikipedia by protecting all of these pages and revering good-faith edits.  It won't be along until I have made you get every article on wikipedia sprotected.  Why don't you just give up this ridiculous game which only originated because you are fanatically pursuing the "no sock puppets" rule.  I have not even vandalized, so you aren't even doing this to prevent vandalism, but merely to satisfy your sick fetishes. The Muck Raker 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your mistake. Your absent-mindedness and strict adherence to the rules will ruin wikipedia and you do not even realize it.  You care more about your power trips than you do about improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Good luck, and know that for every 20 minutes you spend trying to get me banned, I spent about 5% that much time making a new account.  The Muck Raker 04:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

12 Angry Men - Pointless Revert
Why do you keep making pointless reverts on 12 Angry Men? It isn't vandalism. Are you reverting it *just* because you don't want anon's running around editing some pages? That's not making a lot of sense; are you really doing _any_ good by making insignificant reverts that are justifiable? Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you going to draw a line before this turns into a witch hunt, or are you going to keep this up?

Oh, yeah. Block me if you'd please; I'm not a sock puppet (nope! not Mactabbed! sorry, different person here, not your regular ip switch). I appreciate your comments on my willingness to participate (Michael Richards); I'm not a Wikipedia junkie, but I can write a decent response. I certainly don't appreciate how you assume an articulate response on a debated subject is a sockpuppet; there's this thing called 'innocence' that comes into play... TechJon 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody Up There Likes Me (film) protected?
Why did you revert dozens of edits made to this page and why did you have it protected? I just watch the movie and want to update the plot summary, but I find that I am blocked from editting because my account isn't 4 days old? Why does the page, which is practically a stub, need to be protected? And why did you revert the edits made which expanded the plot summary? Rand Integer 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hy netscott
How many hours a day do you spend on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.66.92 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Sockpuppet
Ad hominem2 was a sock of who? TYou provided a link at some point in that spree, but I lost it. Viridae Talk 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, needed to know what the name was for the indefblocked sock template. Viridae Talk 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addoing the sprotected templates, I was wrting a notice at WP:ANI. Viridae Talk 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Going
I'm going out. Wont respond for a while. Viridae Talk 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a notice at WP:ANI too, if you want to list all the socks foudn so far, thjat would be great. Viridae Talk 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a prophet
I have observed that there is a constant effort to introduce comporable language, using any contextual excuse, one consequence of which is to create very awkward English so as to preserve the "Islamic" meaning. The motive, so far as I can discern, is superstitious and existential: that to praise the prophet Muhammad, ideally while others are watching, is in itself to obtain rewards spiritual or in the afterlife. The proof that this is intended is found in the edit warring to preserve otherwise inexplicable strings of text, such as the one at issue. I am thusly inclined to eliminate any language which might reasonably be suspected as having been influenced or motivated by this trend.Proabivouac 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye
See you in a year or so Mr. Stevenson, maybe. :) BhaiSaab talk 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Protected your user page. Looks like aeropagitica blocked the IP address. Let me know when you want the protection lifted. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sock to block
Would you indef. as well? Ordinarily I'd ask User:Pschemp to do so as she's a bit more familiar with this user's pattern of behavior but I've been keeping her busy. Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, done and tagged as a sock. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About Jyllands Posten Cartoons
Can you please answer my one question? If there are total 100 people around and 80 out of them want to see the naked sisters of remaining 20. Will you show them? Where does this voting issue come about showing cartoons of Jyllands Posten? You are doing that same thing for which Jyllands Posten is being convicted by Muslims. Are you really fair? and why are you linking the cartoons to their huge hight resolution size? VirtualEye 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sefringle
Well, that page was something different--not anti-Islam. Sefringle is pretty new so I don't know what's going on--I haven't seen enough of his editing. My main interest is to keep this at least somewhat academic. By thinking 'criticism of Islam' sections don't belong doesn't necessarily mean I have any interest in not making Islam look bad. In fact, I think to represent any pre-modern religion it _is_ going to look bad in many respects. Modernity has given us a morality with values that differ greatly from the past. It has been a part of Islamic jurisprudence that you could have sex with slave girls you captured in battle. When that is reported it's going to look bad--that's how things go because we're judging the past based on our new morality. I think there is a tendency to make Islam look bad--and I'm not fully sure to what extent it's warranted. I know basic Catholic teaching so I will use my example as compared to Catholicism. In the middle ages Catholic teaching was pretty... interesting... in some ways. However, you get to the late 19th / mid 20th centuries and you get massive institutional reform. Rerum Novarum, Second Vatican Counsil--these were unambiguous moves into a new theology. They were also more theological than legal. Now, in Islam you have a much more legal framework. The rulings that get passed around are mostly fiqh rulings--and sometimes they get into awfully specific subjects. There also hasn't been such a break from the past as with Catholicism. My point is that the values of modernity came out of a Christian history. I mean--it's a really odd and complex relationship between the two... but, it's almost natural that the colonized people are going to develop an alternate morality... and most Muslim countries were colonized. So, in short: yes, we do have a problem with trying to make Islam look bad... but I think some Muslim (here and in general) do try to obfuscate--or feel a tension in some things that their co-religionists believe and preach. It's very hard and I do try to deal with these things neutrally... but I think some Muslim editors here see neutrality is making Islam look just as good as Christianity. Do you understand what I'm saying? and... do you agree that this may be the case? Or, do you just think I hate Muslims now :)  In any case, I think these are serious issues that are very hard to judge... but, there are plenty of obviously non-neutral things that we should work on correcting. gren グレン 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we mostly agree. Except, I don't think for the most part there is scholarly criticism.  Western academic tradition (mostly what we're using) has been a relatively descriptive endeavor.  Until recently when you get the post-modern scholars who believe that you can't separate description from power implications and criticize those who pretend they can.  You do have early-ish Western scholars who were Christian missionaries who will add critical asides.  I would have no idea what you mean by academic = 'well thought out'.  There is nothing poorly developed about Muhammad did X; I believe X is wrong; Muhammad is immoral.  I don't know--I think criticism adds nothing because it's done in the inherently POV form of "critic X says Y and scholars A, B, and C back it up" and then you have the counter-argument to 'keep it neutral' which says "but Muslims believe Y and scholars A, B, and C back it up".  I'd much rather go back to the days where POV pushing was straightforward and POV pushing Muslims would say "no one has ever talked about a caravan raid" and the opposite side would say "his whole life was caravan raiding".  Now it's just a system of everyone trying to get their jabs in. It may be possible that "criticism" is done well (such as the opinion polls of what Americans think about Islam and its relation to terrorism--those are relevant) but, it really doesn't deserve an article.  It's as silly as praise of Muhammad. gren グレン 07:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As I promised
Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I sure hope so. KazakhPol 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was planning on contacting all Islam guild members too. I cant do that? Im not telling them how to vote, only pointing them to discussion, KazakhPol 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

JSEA Template
Thanks for making the Jesuit Secondary Education Association template pretty again. We couldn't seem to get it right. Eclectek C  T  18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for handling User:Everythin' But A Good Time. I've indef blocked him and deleted the redirects. Canderson7 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too... good team work. ;-)  20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks with Template
I was just going over the history of Template:911tm today, and I noticed that I mistakenly overwrote your changes to the template. I remember now wondering how the &nbsp's got in there, and I assumed that it was wiki formatting thing. Anyway I was looking at the history today because of a comment I received from Special:Contributions/67.180.110.244 where he claimed that he tried helping with the template. While I was trying to figure out where he tried to contribute (it looks as if he didn't), I noticed that I seem to have stepped right over your work. I'm sorry. Please come back when you have the time and help with the template. This template is being removed over and over again from the pages referenced in it by users claiming anything from "glaring" to improper content. I believe that a good navigation template adds value to the category that it was made for. Thanks again for helping with the template, and I'm sorry I messed with your contribution without noticing it. Umeboshi 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Hi Netscott,

I have eventually decided to open us an RfC for User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:Jayjg. I have just started the page here. Feel free to edit it. Here was my last try. Like everybody else, I value my time and don't want to waste it. RfC takes time but it is just once.

Cheers, Aminz.--Aminz 09:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Netscott, you seem to be on wiki as usual :P --Aminz 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any comment on ? --Aminz 05:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ethnic group
Hi again Scott, Re here, I guess I'm just too irked by the wasted space (and squeezed headings) in instances such as here. This, however, seems to work; what do you think...? (I can't figure out the code to remove those cell borders, though...) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock accusation
Does it really matter if you think I'm a sock? I haven't vandalizsed, so just let me edit and improve wikipedia and peace. You are no longer trying to improvement wikipedia by getting a vandal banned, you are only trying to follow out a personal vendetta with no constructive benefits. Also, I will only continue to come back and edit wikipedia in a constructive manner again, so you're wasting your time. Made of people 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey why won't you respond to me or discuss this with me? What is your IM? Made of people 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza
Hello! Can you please have a look at Banu Qurayza article? We are having problem with representation of sources. I presented relevant quotes from Caesar E. Farah and John Esposito. The first one is trivialized by comments like "this comment is made without any reference" and second comment was taken completely. How can we solve this problem! Any idea? Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards
Hello!

Regarding any problems with the article on Michael Richards it would be best if controversial edits can be discussed on the talk page first. Otherwise the page might end up being protected.

Sincerely, --Oden 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked the IP addresses for the three anonymous users which reverted your edits to Michael Richards (, and ) and they all have the same ISP and location. It might be plausible to assume that the edits are somehow related. --Oden 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

re User:DAde sockpuppet = Abc3
Hey Szvest, could you block ? Peruse this user's contibutions and you'll find that it is just a sock of User:DAde. Note the Qu'ran quotes and interest in Mormon topics. Thanks. 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Scott. Blocked indef and noted. -- Szvest  - Wiki me up ®  12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect Michael Richards
Thanks Szvest for the block of User:DAde's sockpuppet above. Got another request. Could you sprotect ? There's an anonymous IP-hopping user that has been violating 3RR across several editors and tagging his edits as "rvv" while reverting to a lower quality / less sourced/cited POV pushing version of the article. I've requested semi protection but the response to my request appears to be a bit slow. Thanks. 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Szvest, Thanks but the article really only needs sprotecting as the only warring user has been the IP-hopping anon user. 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I had fully protected it as it seemed more an edit warring than IP vandalism. But, well IP-hopping is quite enough a reason to warrant a semi instead of a fully protection. -- <font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that is understandable for an editor like yourself who's not been following the article. If you can spare a moment just review the edits for the last day or so and you'll see that there's been only one editor that's been consistently going against consensus and that's the IP hopping anon. I encourage you to invite a 3rd party view if necessary. 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I see you've already sprotected... thanks again Szvest. 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure mate! -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or Historian
Why would historian be a misnomer?? Not only is the use referenced but she meets the test for historian is most definitions. If she is not a historian then neither are Ibn Khaldun and countless other people deemed to be historians who had no advanced academic credentials in history beyond their own chronicles of events.--CltFn 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

''re: In modern day usage the term historian is primarily used in academia. It is not neutral to refer to her as a "historian". (→Netscott) 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * That would be an opinion, Merriam Websters defines it here and Oxford dictionary defines it here, American Heritage dictionary defines it here. Thus by "modern day usage" as supported by mainstream dictionaries Bat Ye'Or is a historian.--CltFn 17:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

re: ''You've got no consesus for your highly non-neutral utilization of that term for her. You can be sure that not only will I be reverting such wording but others will as well. (→Netscott) 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)''


 * I provided mainstream dictionaries definitions of historian and I provided notable references of Bat Ye'or being described as a historian. Can you provide a notable reference beyond an opinion that would support your assertion ?--CltFn 17:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards sockpuppetry?
I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is non other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User Netscott you use these allegations of sockpuppetry to act in an uncivil way when editing the Michael Richards article. You dont explain your edits and instead throw insults around like 'likely sockpuppet master'. Care to explain how the sentence about the laugh factory's reaction should be in the incident section instead of the aftermath? How does that describe the incident in any meaningful way? Your edits are much more similar to that of the IP edits, as you just blindly revert, while i engaged in discusson on the talk page even prior to any of my edits. I can understand the edits about the lead as you changed your position and now for the deletion of sourced material, but how about that sentence being in the wrong place? Check the talk page of my stance prior to any editing done by me. Geza 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reform is a positive word
Over here in Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661) you said that "the word reformation doesn't mean inherently good.. there can be reforms that are bad as well " - you are completely wrong and I'm suspicious of your nuetrality by the confidence you said this. Reform is a positive word. See the dictionary here: "To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.". More meanings here. I'm raising the issue again that the title of this article is POV. It puts a positive slant for Islam. If thats allowed then we should also allow "Bad stuff done under Islam". I dont think POV titles are allowed and I believe its the title of this article which is the root cause of its edit conflicts and I have talked about this in the Talk page at the bottom. In any case, the title should be nuetral and this one is clearly not.--Matt57 16:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Orthodox Jews would consider Reform Judaism an "improvement". To reform means to form again. It is an inherently biased term. Wahkeenah 07:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the dictionary, Reform is a positive word. The title thus puts Islam in a positive light and is POV. I'm not the only one who is saying this. See previous discussions above on this page.--Matt57 21:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Yes i will avoid making any more edits because i got blocked before due to tag team editing --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He is know for being humble and not a capitalist, he is know for sincerity, he is a poor man, walks with the people and lives like the people, no pomp and glory, very simple person he is also loved for his stance on womens rights, most are not happy with the anti-Israeli thing because even if we dont like israel the statement is seriously poor from every angle. anyone who advocates killing innocent people jew or not is a problem.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not correct, the problem with the world, is that news media is controlled by Mr X, who is not Muslim, isnt Arab, isnt African, isnt non-European, people report things of interest to them, We talk about World WAr, COlumbus discovered, the first European to... this is the legacy of imbalance. If it isnt on CNN and BBC it doesnt exist, in the COngo millions dead, but the news is on one mans statement. Our news and our people know about him outside of this, actually in Ethiopia if you asked about him no one knows about Israel they would say "ohh that guy that dresses like a normal person" he is known for his being for his people living like his people, have you ever seen where he lives? where his children go to school? even in poor ethiopia we dont have any politician as poor as him.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Africa is 800 Million, India is 1 billion, china is even more, i dont think he is know by the majority of people in the world for being antisemitic, most people wouldnt know him, media has made him know in the west for one reason. the power of minority lobbying groups to dominant world events. and in Nigeria he is know for the same thing. 1.5 billion Muslims dont know him for that. The point is either way we cannot make these statements "he is most know for.."--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Note
An editor has expressed to me in email their displeasure at your reverting of their edit.

I understand that indefinitely blocked editors have their editing privileges revoked, and have absolutely no problem with that. But in looking over the removed copy (note: with no knowledge of whether this is part of another situation), it seems to be a moderately worthwhile addition to the article.

*shrug* I'm not sure what proper protocol is in this situation, but I thought I'd at least drop you a line, if for no other reason than to get both sides of the story. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User page deletion
Hello Szvest, re-reading G4 apparently the spiting is permitted (per the userpage clause) however I'm thinking that G4 should be updated to disallow the usage of one's primary user page for recreation of deleted content. This reminds me of User:List of marijuana slang terms which was created to display this deleted content. 14:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. I missed the unless part of the policy. I agree w/ you about updating the policy. Do you have any particular way on how to process? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  14:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd guess the best place to start would be Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'd be surprised if there'd be much resistance to such a change.  14:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be supporting that. Just inform me when you are ready. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  14:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Transcluded signature
Please note that transcluded signatures such as yours are explicitly banned per WP:SIG. If you consent, I will use AWB to subst: all of your signatures this evening. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
I don't understand why you make that request. Do you deny that the page is accurate? If so, please tell us where. If not, why do you object to stating that the page is accurate?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends. If there are actual arguments against an addition, yes. If the argument is "you can't add that without discussing it" that'd be pretty much circular. Once more, do you deny that the page is accurate? If so, please tell us where. If not, why do you object to stating that the page is accurate?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedia, and this page is instructive in telling people how it works. That makes its accuracy relevant to those people seeking instruction.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you think something is irrelevant, why are you edit warring over it?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware that what you just said was a straw man? It's not useful to state on a page what it's not, because there are an infinite amount of things that it's not (it's not part of the American Constitution either, and neither is it an elephant). It is, however, useful to state on a page what it is.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing in dispute is the tag, but it's not the case that every page in Wikispace needs to be tagged "policy" "guideline" or "essay" (in fact, most Wikispace pages aren't any of those). If something doesn't fit the pigeonhole, we use something else to describe it. That is precisely the kind of compromise that could end a dispute.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people
I haven't been monitoring that category, so I wouldn't know what problems it has. I would not be too surprised if it suffers from the same constant POV-pushing. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs a category called "Evil people", as per a particular Twilight Zone episode. Wahkeenah 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article
Hi Netscott,

Happy New Year!!

As you know an RfC was recently filed on Anti-Semitism related articles which I believe shows the very existence of some dispute in that article if not that which party is right. Some editors are now disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here  and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. --Aminz 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

 * Without accusing you of vandalism I would ask that you either (a) be more careful in your reversions or (b) explain in the article's Talk page why you object to my edits as they were non-controversial edits confined to grammar and structure. --ElKevbo 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Current subject
Hi, I have nominated Template:Current subject at WP:TFD to spur some discussion, since you created the template I figure you'd want to participate. Thanks. --W.marsh 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Netscott, I liked your science contributions on the Levitron entry - however there are some posters insisting on trashing the article and turning it into a soap box. I posted my thoughts in the discussion area there. It's just one article, but it happens to be one of the many emailed to me by colleagues critical of Wikipedia accuracy. It's probably not your highest priority, but you are a highly regarded WP editor and perhaps your voice of reason will allow this article to remain junk free. TgSTheGreatScott 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of film edits
Hi Netscott, I am getting more and more confused as all this is developing. Yesterday, a new member of WP Films got blocked for sockpuppetry. I was just doing Films gnoming work (adding infoboxes and such), as I noticed that Fistful of Questions had sorted wrong the list of films in 1948 in film. I dropped by to let him know I disagree just as he was being blocked. So he appealed for help. I had a look at Buttocks and, amused at the whole issue, I thought it must have been a misunderstanding. So I urged our young films admin Cbrown1023 to clear him. I am far from being a good sleuth, didn't look very deep into it, didn't see any admin markings on your page, but one way or the other I shouldn't have reacted as I did. I have apologized to all concerned for it and I apologize to you too. Whoever the user behind Fistful of Questions is, keeps emailing me that it's all a misunderstanding, appeals for help and insists he is innocent of sockpuppetry. I don't answer because I'm not sure what's going on. He also mentioned your reverting his edits in Somebody Up There Likes Me (film), so I checked and I am now more confused than ever. Ok, the flagicon and precise date of release in the infobox are not of my fancy, but it's usual practice for many Films members. The English language, however should be given. "Extenal links" is a section all film articles should have, as the IMDb link in the infobox shouldn't replace this section. Category:Films released on July 3rd is also not a category I like, but Category:Drama films definitely qualifies. I am trying to keep good faith in all directions, but don't understand this revert. Even if FofQ is indeed a sockpuppet, why revert the usefull part of his WP Films edits? I have spent some time deep in the night trying to find if the rest of his edits (as FofQ) are suspicious. The image tagging issue doesn't look good at all. But many of his other edits seemed acceptable. I am no self-appointed protector of film members and all this is taxing my time on project work. I would appreciate an answer about the revert. Hoverfish Talk 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read the section of Banning policy, so don't have to answer about it. Please understand all this is new to me and I am simply trying to understand what is going on. May I put back the useful things to the film article? Hoverfish Talk 08:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last assumption of good faith
Hi, you are continuously reverting, and not discussing at the policy trifecta. This is not conducive to forming a consensus in any way. Please do not make further changes, and instead discuss on the talk page. Thank you.

--Kim Bruning 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! I wish you had written much earlier. As per one of (your choice :-)) Harmonious editing club, 1 revert rule, or Bold revert discuss, you shouldn't really keep reverting back and forth once things are taken to talk, if only because then you end up not being able to revert again that day when a real idiot comes along. ;-) This also falls under the trifecta policy of WP:DICK of course, though there are much nicer ways to say it, I agree.


 * This page is not a (proposed) essay, guideline, or policy. Instead, people can subscribe to it, and if they wish even place a template or userbox on their talk page.


 * It is a policy trifecta, because it was designed, written, intended, and is being used as a summary of policy.


 * Please do not mark it as an essay (it is not), or try to remove the basic mechanism why it works (because that's silly! :-) )


 * Could we now please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Policy trifecta? We should have been doing that many edits ago, actually. It would have saved us both quite some time too! :-)


 * --Kim Bruning 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So much for assuming good faith perhaps? I reverted and said take it to talk several times, whilst counting, then I took it here and posted "last attempt at good faith". You just kept on reverting even while we were discussing on talk, which is well, rude. :-/
 * In future, perhaps I should get a 3rd party to keep overwatch in situations like this. --Kim Bruning 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm surprised that there's not yet many other folks. There's quite a lot of people with this page on their watchlists. I just happened to be one of the first to respond today. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright issue
Can you please check Image:Gregmacgillivray.jpg. As said, I'm no good sleuth. Hoverfish Talk 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards
Hi! I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get some modicum of concensus before rocking the boat. Please, weigh in! Cleo123 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of edit tool?
I'm rather mystified about your concern for improper use of an edit tool. Is it not there for reverting edits as suggested by existence of the "undo" option? There has yet been no solution to the question of removing pictures of Muhammad from that article, so the picture you removed should rightly stay. Frotz661 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident
An editor has nominated Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It Was An Alert.
I was not harassing you at all: please accept that. I was simply alerting you in case you had violated it. Since my own violation of the three-revert rule over a month ago, I have tried to make sure that other users don't also violate it. Acalamari 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll do that. Sorry about it though; I wasn't intending any bad-faith. Acalamari 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. I still am sorry for my message abour 3RR. Like I said, no bad-faith was intended at all. I was genuinely concerned in case you had violated it...but fortunately, you haven't. Unfortunately, I have quite a lot on my plate at the moment (in both real and Wikipedia life), so that first message was typed in a hurry. I hope this cleared up any remaining concerns. Acalamari 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation campaign
Hello, Netscott - I would like to ask you for your input in this - literally thousands of articles have been sloppily "Anglicised" already (changing "région" for "region", for example, without modifying the phrase around it in the least to provide the proper context/meaning of the term) without any prior discussion at all. For certain words whose most-known English meaning is different than its French counterpart, the French italicised style has been used from the start for for both its similarity to the English wordform yet precision of meaning - yet there has been no case to date made as to why these terms should be 'translated' - it was just done. As you are major contributor to France-topic articles, so your input in this case is even important. Please help. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi, see this message on my talk. I don't know what the whole story behind it is, although looking at your contributions I am getting an idea :), but the edit in question was a good edit though. Garion96 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the category. I thought it was indeed something like that. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Why removal?
Hey...I had removed it because the linked article was editorial commentary. (As a side issue, I also had a problem with where it was placed - at the very top of all the external links, even her official site.) That aside, we have already got a ton of links at the bottom of this page and there has to be some criteria for limiting them - Wikipedia is not a directory of links. In this case, rather than providing new information to the reader, I thought the link just led to a "me, too" opinion by an author who agrees with Hirsi Ali. If the deletion is controversial, we can discuss on the talk page of the article. {I will admit I could have been a little trigger-happy on the deletion - this page gets a lot of weird linkspam from IPs). If the link is ultimately included, should probably be in the "Other" link section at the bottom. But I think the links are currently fairly balanced - there are a ton of interviews with her, which should present her point of view without the "me, too" from Ms. Nasrin. Cheers - RJASE1 08:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Why aren't you an admin yet? 72.88.153.180 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab, I understand your convictions and desire to edit on Wikipedia relative to the injustices you percieve to be occuring on a number of articles here but when you keep coming back as anon-IPs and sockpuppets and defiantly continuing in your old patterns of editing and having your 1 year ban extended you're just doing yourself and the project more harm than good. I would never recommend you evade your 1 year ban but it is pointless to try to edit on the same topics that you were involved with when you were banned. Doing that makes it very easy for your presence to be detected and for your IP addresses and sockpuppets to be blocked and your original ban extended. If I were in your position and wanting to contribute I would do so in areas completely unrelated to my ArbCom ban. As far as why I am not an admin, I need more time to build up a record of positive contributions with no further disruptions (as noted in my block log) before that can happen. Take it easy. 11:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, they use the same IP ranges, and are at least in contact with each other. On the other hand, they seem to have a slightly different "voice". It's a tough call. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You should let Jayjg know that he has incorrectly labeled this IP and this IP as His Excellency. He's wrong, those are me, BhaiSaab. I really don't have any intentions of abiding by this yearlong block, and I've already said on my userpage that the BhaiSaab account might as well be banned permanently. "If I were in your position and wanting to contribute I would do so in areas completely unrelated to my ArbCom ban." How do you know I'm not doing that already? Yes, I'm in contact with His Excellency but we're not the same person. Good luck with everything. 72.88.157.34 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By "contact", he means we exchanged 2 e-mail,1 in each direction, when one of my accounts were blocked as his sockpuppet. Lesson learned: Fuck with Hindus and Karma will come to bite you. I'm a guy with a 6 month block accused and condemned of being the guy with a 1 year block. Hilarious. I emailed you a while ago about that bit of irony, I was going to send you a second one explaining I'm HE and not Bhaisaab, so that you could get the extention on Bhaisaab's account revoked. Turned out he was editing away anyway, so I didn't have to go that road. It baffles me as much as it does you that anyone would confuse a rogue like me of being Bhaisaab. Apparently when an editor with a Muslim perspective uses standard english and shows some amount of spine, they all look the same.Btw, given two IDs have been wrongly tied to Bhaisaab's account, exactly what incentive does he have to abide by any Arbcom-enforced block when the block is repeatedly extended regardless of whether an accused 'sockpuppet' is his or not? Suspicion alone is evidence enough, and Likely=Confirmed. [removed] Seems a Muslim can't bend over backwards enough. Anyway, this was all fun. I've been editing pretty much since 3 days after my HE account was banned. The arbcom result didn't state explicitly that I couldn't use sockpuppets, it was merely a block on one ID. Unlike Hkelkar,who was "prohibted" from using any ID or socks. Tereba 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you have a yen against soapboxing, check out 2002 Gujarat Violence. Compare media reports (CNN, BBC, whatever) with the "Encylopedia anyone can edit". Where every other credible source describes the event as a massacre against the Muslim population, this WP article has it all framed as though the Muslims had it coming. I improved it some, so go into the histories. It's an article that needs a few neutral non-south asian eyes. Tereba 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * H_E: Aminz is an excellent editor. His only problem is that he has to deal with Israeli editors that work like a group against any Israeli/Jewish criticisms. 72.88.157.34 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In general he is,and I know that as an editor he's contributed much to the Islam-related articles, but his association with Merzbow in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam back then pissed me off. Back then it was evident that Merzbow used two entirely different criteria for determining 'reliability' of a source, one for Muslim sources and another for anti-Muslim ones. Apparently Merzbow's tempered that bias since then, and shows more neutrality now. [removed] Now Aminz is learning the hard way that there's no pleasing them. We're scripted to be the bad guys, and that's the end of it.Tereba 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hurry up
Hurry up please go edit this critique also:

Systemic bias in coverage
Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, a tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance. Even the site's proponents admit to this flaw. In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair." 

Because this content is left which could criticize wikipedia. So you better remove this too so that wikipedia becomes totally POV bunch of articles. (no offense to you though, but you can contact an admin if you like).

Can you please tell me what is the ratio of Muslim editors here as compared to nonmuslims? Wikipeida can never ever ever be NPOV when you have 10000000000 eidtors at one side and half a dozen muslim editors at the other side. VirtualEye 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks :-)
No problem! <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CloneGuard and Filmforlife etc.
CloneGuard was actually User:Kgeza67, who, among other things, is obsessed with Michael Richards. The other two were indeed Mactabbed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
Hiya Netscott. Thanks for the welcome back. Good to see you're still here too. &#2384; <strong style="color:orange;">Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FairNBalanced's talk page
Yes, it was happenstance - I came across it through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political fallout from seperation issues, and upon perusing the page I observed the contributions of various users that had voted, in order to determine their longevity, or lack thereof. FairNBalanced had voted in the kitty poll, and I happened upon his user page, was redirected to user talk, saw the inflammatory message, by what thus far seems to be a single-purpose account, checked out the page history, and removed it. Hypertext can get complicated :) ... that's about it, though. Grace notes <sup style="color:#960;">T  &#167; 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Please look at your latest edit to this article and see what it did to the formatting of the footnotes. I'm happy to rebuild the article with anything that has gone missing and which is not POV, but I had to revert back to the last version - before my most recent edits over the past couple of days - in order to restore some formatting that I inadvertently stuffed up (mea culpa on that). I explained the situation in my edit summary. If you go through the history you will see that most of the substantive changes since then were made by me. The others are mainly vandalism and reversions of vandalism. Your actions have unnecessarily complicated my attempt to build the article from the base it had a couple of days ago. I would appreciate being consulted before you revert actions of mine to some random version, unless of course you plan to go through and fix all the formatting yourself. More generally, it causes disruption whenever a well-established good-faith editor is treated like a troll or a vandal, which is more or less how you just treated me. Now, how do you propose to sort out the problem of the formatting of the footnotes? Can I assume that you are going to go through and find what has caused the problem and fix it up? Metamagician3000 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Any time
No problem, I just wanted to speak up on what I saw was some inexplicable rudeness, I couldn't believe one editor was attacking you when in the past you've repeatedly defended him (e.g. when I and Wahkeenah questioned his editing motives and you came to his defense). I think you summed up the situation perfectly that they are doing what they are doing now out of "loss of POV support" by appealing to banned sockpuppets, which's pretty shocking, and doesn't really reflect well on their objectivity as editors or even their character. Cheers. Tendancer 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I left out hypocrisy. Cleo123 talks about the two banned editors as being people... well hello!? She wants to excise from the article all quotes coming from Kyle Doss and Frank McBride...?? But wait, aren't those two individuals....wait for it... wait for it.. people too?  03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: the unsourced edits. I see you've already expunged the "outrageous" section, and updated/re-updated the "return to apologize part", you're fast. :) I rewatched the entire video and the "outrageous" stuff is definitely a made-up claim: the other camp is probably not going to be happy because in their minds that is painting Richards in a bad light (or whatever other bizarre rationale), but facts are facts: I already did quite a bit of legwork to help source 1 of the 2 uncited claims for them. Cheers. Tendancer 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

About the French bum
Well, I think I sincerely added that pic, maybe not in the correct section, but I thought it was necessary. Anyway, you are right about the use of the word BUM, I shouldn't have put it there. Cheers. -- Walt e r Humala God   save him! <font color="#00AA88">(wanna Talk?) 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Ummm ... No, it's not being actively discussed. It is being actively trolled, for lack of a better word. Yuser31415 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are several individuals actively involved in discussions there, are you referring to them as a trolls? 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say "for lack of a better word". Probably I would be better to say that the discussion has gone past the point of being constructive, and has instead transformed into a giant uncivil fight between two groups of editors. Yuser31415 06:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this is Wikipedia, you're welcome to revert but you can be pretty darn sure that another editor will do the same as myself. This is discussion and as you may or may not know discussion is a big part of how things are determined around here... this discussion is probably going to have some lasting consequences and needs to occur one way or another wether those like yourself like it or not. 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, correct. Yuser31415 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:Japanese ethnicity
Hi again Scott,
 * ''...I'm not sure what you are seeing but per the code of Tnavbar-header, everything's centered.

My mistake; I must've thought it was off-center when I tried comparing the two versions. Hope you agree, though, that the new position overcomes the color problem. I think I'd recommend moving the Tnavbar there anyway, to avoid any sense of clutter in the titlebar.

As I'm here, I wonder what you'd make of the following (and whether you reckon other folk might be in favor): I was thinking of proposing that either the Navigation or Navbox generic format was phased out in favor of the other, for the sake of: What do you think...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) consistency in multiple templates' appearance (e.g. in articles about countries);
 * 2) avoiding situations where X templates of one kind are autocollapsed, but one or two of the other kind remain shown.

Kgeza67
Yes, thanks, please feel free to continue letting me know. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Hugedummy
I have blocked User:Hugedummy for violation of 3RR. However, you are warned not to edit war as well. The following is the notice I left at the 3RR noticeboard:

User has been blocked for 24h as a result of 3RR. However, you are warned not to continue on the track that you are on: Take the dispute to the talk page, or you will be in danger of being blocked for disruption and edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement, and although it has been over more than a period of 24 hours, you have reverted many more than 3 times and your reverts are every bit as much as contentious as User:Hugedummy's. -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the report also. -- Renesis (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Yeah, this is better than the or a. Good work. WilyD 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Banners
One doesn't require consensus to edit (though recent discussion show more people support remove than oppose it), and I told them why having them is stupid in the edit summary, and if they put them back, I am not going to revert, but that is a decision they should make not you.

Also, many of the accounts where they were removed were old accounts with little current activity.

Dragons flight 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite an ongoing discussion in which this exact action on your part has been criticised, you're going out of your way to revert my banner removals on behalf of users who haven't complained (and might even approve of the removals). That seems far more like making a point than anything else that has occurred thus far. —David Levy 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all, my edits are good faith attempts to right a wrong per WP:CIV and the utter lack of consensus for your original removals. 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the cited debate is to determine whether or not to prohibit the pranks, not whether or not to permit their removal. One needn't establish consensus before editing a wiki page.  If the users wish to restore the banners (and many of them might not), why not allow them to do this on their own?  —David Levy 21:06/21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm sorry David but you are again comparing those apples to those oranges. You are correct that per WP:BOLD one doesn't need to establish consensus but one also has to not be reckless and your making non-consensus changes en-masse was certainly that. In your edit summaies you made the users think that there was some sort of a consensus on this and there is obviously not... 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was consensus at the time, and there certainly isn't consensus that these banners should be permitted. Restoring them to the pages of users who haven't even complained (many of whom may have read the arguments against them and agreed) is not helpful.  —David Levy 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Luna Santin did a masterful job of demonstrating how you operated in haste and that for the guideline you were operating under there was in fact no recognized consensus (you yourself were aware of this given your own reversion of User:Garion96 who's edit summary read "too harsh") . For you to be claiming that you were operating in consensus is disingenuous at minimum and outright deceptive at maximum. 21:26, 15 February 2007(UTC)


 * No, I honestly believe that all of the discussion that existed at that point was indicative of clear consensus. As indicated in my edit summary (and subsequently explained at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/UI spoofing), I viewed the text in question as clarification of the rule's intent, not as anything that altered it.  At the time of my edits, there was near-unanimous agreement at WP:VPR, and no one had attempted to remove the rule itself.  —David Levy 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if you honestly felt that (and obviously you're aware of it being otherwise now) then the good faith move to do would be to actually go back and restore those banners yourself rather than just assume that the users are agreeing to what you did (which let's be honest many of them would likely only have agreed to if they really thought that there was a well established policy or guideline in place actually justifying your removals). I challenge you to show your good faith about thinking that there was a consensus and then seeing there wasn't one by going back and restoring those banners and making requests on the affected user's pages requesting that they remove them themselves or allow me to just reestablish the banners in your place with no protest. 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I view the current situation differently than you do. In the Wikipedia community, the default presumption is that deliberate disruption* is not tolerated.  I believe that we would need consensus for the pranks to override this presumption.  That clearly doesn't exist, and the fact that the fake messages were allowed to exist for a while (before the problem escalated to the point at which numerous editors realized that they were actively interfering with the authorship of the encyclopedia) doesn't render them sacrosanct.
 * In other words, I still believe that the removal of these banners is justified, but I have no intention of engaging in actions that I realize would spark significant controversy under the present circumstances (thereby causing more disruption than is caused by the banners themselves).
 * * I acknowledge that there usually is no underlying malice, and that the disruption (tricking someone into believing that he/she has new messages) is relatively minor. —David Levy 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I e-mailed similar comments to Jimbo, and I just received a reply indicating agreement. —David Levy 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then let us invite User:Jimbo Wales to make a pronouncement about this then and cease all of this discussion about consensus, shall we? 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. According to the e-mail that I received, Jimbo is presently discussing with the ArbCom the formulation of a rule against imitating the MediaWiki UI for the purpose of "annoying people or tricking people in bad ways."  —David Levy 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David, the wording you're using here is ridiculously ambiguous. 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The quoted test merely references Jimbo's reply (not the hypothetical policy wording). —David Levy 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David Levy, there's was never a consensus either way and as you are well aware of in that case things remain status quo. Allow me to restablish this status quo with no protest via reverting your non-consensus removals and thereby demonstrate your the good faith you speak of. 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that there was consensus, but I fully acknowledge that there is none now. I perceive the status quo as the disallowance of deliberate disruption.  —David Levy 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am right to question your good faith when you choose to selectively respond to what I am saying. The status quo (prior to your, ahem.. "realization" of no consensus) was that those users had the banner on their pages. Again the good faith thing to do is to undo your non-consensus changes (as is always done on Wikipedia) and demonstrate what you are saying (your good faith).  22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagreement != bad faith. I believe that these banners always constituted deliberate disruption and were subject to removal.  I respect your opinion to the contrary, and I won't even accuse you of acting in bad faith for having it.  —David Levy 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No this is not a disagreement, this is you attempting to employ a red herring in trying to deny the status quo was that those users had joke "new message" banners on their user pages, which you know full well is true. 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw man. I don't deny that the banners were in place.  I deny that this was ever proper based upon the community's established standards.  People include all sorts of inappropriate content on user pages, and the failure to remove it in a timely manner doesn't mean that it's grandfathered in.  —David Levy 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David, that is the whole point there is zero consensus for your view that the "new message" joke banners represent "inappropriate content". Because this is true it is normal to in good faith restablish the content that was improperly (ie: out of consensus) removed. 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to have short-circuited.
 * Again, we don't need to establish consensus before editing pages. There isn't consensus for requiring the banners' removal, but that doesn't mean that there's consensus prohibiting it.  (Clearly, there isn't.)  I view the straw poll as evidence of no consensus to allow the banners.
 * I agreed to cease removing the banners for the time being (long before you agreed to cease restoring them) because doing so would create more disruption than it would prevent, but I believe that the banners defy established community standards and that restoring them harms the encyclopedia.
 * I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith.  —David Levy 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David, you're wrong. We absolutely need to have a consensus if our intention is to cite some sort of a policy as we edit. That consensus is on the policy itself. This is particularly true when an editor like yourself is editing en-masse based upon some flimsy one day (or was it two?) guideline. Don't worry about the good faith reverting I'm requesting you to do... I'm seeing that you have no intention of making a demonstation in doing that and frankly it is becoming evident that this discussion is going nowhere. I suggest we disengage from this line on my talk page and discuss it further on the other concerned pages as we wait for what Jimbo Wales and/or the ArbCom have to say about this. 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to stop claiming that the only way for me to demonstrate good faith is to agree with you.  —David Levy 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Banners bis
Ok, I'm going to make a demonstration based upon how you respond to the following. Let's say that you are a proponent of circumcision but you'd never edited the article and you came in and boldly (and in good faith, let's say) introduced into the lead a line that said something like, "Circumcision is the best thing a parent can do for a child to reduce the chance for stds later on in life." thinking that you'd have consensus for this addition and then lets say that approx. 50% of the editors agree with that statement being in the lead while another 50% says no. Per wikipedia policy what happens? 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The disputed element is removed. Thanks for bolstering my argument.  —David Levy 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the newly performed and disputed edit is reverted. So as of now you are fully aware that there is no consensus for the new edits you perfomed... in that case, what do we do? 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The disputed edit's age is irrelevant. If the same scenario were to arise with a year between the content's insertion and the dispute, the end result would be same: the contested element would be removed.
 * The project's goal is to build an encyclopedia. The inclusion of anything not directly related to the construction of an encyclopedia is subject to consensus.  As it turns out, these hoax banners (most of which were added in good faith) lack consensus; as in your example scenario, approximately 50% (probably more, but whatever) of editors believe that they should be disallowed.  To me, it seems ridiculous to claim that a 100% unencyclopedic entity must remain because only half of the community believes that it's harmful.
 * But again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to stop accusing me of acting in bad faith by disagreeing with you.  —David Levy 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * David, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to make a good faith demonstration relative to your out of consensus edits. I suppose your convictions are too strong about this to be able to do that so I'm not requesting that any further. Back in the early part of last year when this practical joke was all the rage I got annoyed with it and made my counter "new messages" "new messages" banner and displayed it for some time. Funny enough it worked. I definitely noticed folks that I interacted with started to remove them. At this point all that I'm saying is that until there is a well established policy/guideline to do so, folks have got no business running around directly removing the "new message" banners without ever requesting the given user do it themself (like you were doing). Thanks.  03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, and I respectfully disagree.
 * As I explained, I believe that there would have to be consensus for the hoax banners in order for them to rightfully remain in place. Clearly, there's no such consensus, nor is there consensus against their removal.
 * The fact that I haven't removed a single hoax banner following the controversial incident (despite my belief that ample justification exists) is evidence that I'm acting in good faith. My refusal to do what you want me to is not evidence to the contrary.  —David Levy 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I suspect that if you had continued as you were before you would have caused further disruption and an ensuing blocking/unblocking wheel war. I'll admit that the fact that you've not continued is a good sign and is indicative of good faith but I'll be honest with you and say that I have the impression that if this brouhaha dies down without an established consensus or policy regarding the "new message" boxes and based upon what you've been saying, you'll likely go back to your non-consensus removals and encourage others to do so as well. 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. My goal is to reduce disruption, not increase it.  I probably would simply post polite requests that the banners be removed voluntarily.  —David Levy 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Short of an established consensus or policy/guideline I sincerely hope you do that. I'll take your words here as an assurance and with them accept that yes you have been operating in good faith. Thanks. 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I left a note on Robert's talk page.  —David Levy 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

 * How many messages like this are we up to now David? I know that User:Dragons flight had at least two... I think I see two here. 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've received similar complaints from blatant vandals and authors of deleted nonsense. I don't recall claiming that no one disliked having the banner removed.  —David Levy 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

cool cucumber
-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks bro... I appreciate the recognition. :-) 21:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
<br style="clear:both">
 * Well, I wouldn't call what User:David Levy did vandalism and so while I appreciate the spirit of this barnstar I'm afraid it is a bit funny. :-)  21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider any edit to my user page without my consent and against my wishes to be vandalism, which is why I chose that Barnstar for you. By the way, you inspired me to do some reverting of my own this evening. Another dozen downtrodden Wikipedians are breathing the fresh air of democracy once again. Jeffpw 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's what the Dead Poet Society is all about. If you have not seen this film I strongly encourage you to... what's happening here is so well played out in it's own way in that film (which is why I make mention of it on my User page). I would kindly request that you cease doing that now as there is an agreement that is being established to neither remove or restore the banners until a consensus about them is fully established. Thanks again. 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply from the Hybrid
Thanks for bringing that discussion to my attention. At this point I see a discussion where consensus has yet to be established, so IMO that user editing my adoptee's page was rude and uncalled for. I may join in that debate, but I'm not sure. I don't feel like getting involved in another argument where certain policies will agree with one side and others with another. It's too frustrating. I'll abide by whatever ruling is made, but until there is one I would appreciate it if my adoptee's page, which doesn't even have the yellow box, is not brought into the crossfire. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your invitation
Thanks for the invitation. I've already added my disagreement with the rule on the 1st page. I'll think about the 2nd page. Kingjeff 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request
Jeffpw is restoring the hoax banner. Could you please drop him a note along the lines of the one that I left for Dragons flight?

Wow, as I was typing the above, you read my mind and did it! Thanks! :-) —David Levy 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Searching
Hey and thanks for the help. I'm curious about the search system. Is there any way to add some sort of spell-checker addition to the searching tool? Google does this and it helps tremendously. The whole "did you mean..." extension, I've found, to be very effective. Often, I find myself spell-checking something by searching for it in Google, then copy and pasting the word or subject into Wikipedia. Just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceholiday (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).