User talk:Anonymous editor/Archive 7

Hahaha. Even more evidence that it's "Saduj": Lajjadda spelled backwards is ad-Dajjal. freestylefrappe 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah :) I noticed that too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i got your E-mail, shall be done! Thank you!--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Wikipediholic on your user page should point to Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. I left it untouched, as having just seen my user page vandalised twice in as many minutes I just began a feud against user page vandals... but feel free to update the link yourself! haz (user talk) 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 23:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon, there are two similar templates: Template:Pakistan topics and Template:Pak links. Maybe they could be merged? I prefer the format of the first one. deeptrivia (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did help on both templates. One is more to do with categories with general Pakistan information whilst the other takes you to the direct articles on particular subjects, therefore, both have different functions, hence i suggest they should be left seperate. User:Fast track (talk) 23 January 2006

Yes they should be separate. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It's ironic; before the recent discussion about this, I would have notified BYT of that same vote, because he would be interested, even though I expect he would vote other than as I did. To Urthogie's credit, he notified everyone generally, rather than supporters only. Of course it doesn't belong on the administrators' notice board, but I guess I don't mind if more people know about the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be taken down as inappropriate, but whoever did would be accused of tring to hold a stealth vote. It's McCain-Feingold in miniature;) Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really the place for his announcement is WP:RM, where it is already. I'll mention to him for future reference that the noticeboard isn't the place for that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this Wikipedia. Where/how can I help out on Islam pages? عزل 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AE. I think this is another new sockpuppet of Saduj/Zeno. Yuber^(talk) 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought so too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the template . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Masjid-e-Nabvi deserves to be here , rather than Al-Aqsa Mosque. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have both there now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on the ongoing deletion of good sourced content, references and footnotes and the addition of dubious material and original research in this article would be much appreciated if you have time. --Ian Pitchford 22:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I am talking about. Please revert yourself. Zeq 05:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can protect any page that has a large edit war. I protected it as soon as I found out about it, without an opinion on which version I was protecting. Also I have never edited the page before and don't know much about the edit war except that it was over sources. So I am sorry if you wanted "your version" protected. Please solve your problems with the other editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is probably this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination), I suggest that we close with status work through the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination)/redux. I have made a start, we can sort the people into blocks and add the {user} syntax to review contribs, then you can call it. Do you think we should close pending decision, or do you think we can keep up with new contribs as they come in? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck closing AFD on the Jason Gastrich articles. It's going to be a really manky job, and I'm grateful that you were willing to step up and do it. I trust you to be fair, and I'll back you up regardless of what you decide about any/all of 'em. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the votes I didn't count out of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Baptist University people (second nomination):

• User:Hvnhlpr (only edit was to the AfD)
• User:God's child (newbie)
• User:Michaelwmoss (newbie)
• User:207.200.116.196
• User:Theologist101 (relative newbie, with half his edits to his user page)
• User:Kmweber (he votes keep on everything "because it exists")
• User:God of War (his vote was "per Kurt Weber")
• User:Swatjester (his vote was "Stop hating on anyone with religion.")

Here's a list of the traveling inclusionists who all voted on the same articles (although I counted them):

• User:Lerner
• User:Wynler
• User:Shanedidona
• User:Yonghokim
• User:Alkivar
• User:The1physicist
• User:Spawn Man

howcheng {chat} 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the protection and please ignore the criticism you got from a certain highly problematic editor. Cheers. --Zero 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, thanks for protecting 1948 Arab Israeli War, things erupted while I was asleep. But, don't worry about it. I've been trying to get these guys to talk to each other instead of reverting for a couple weeks...I'l handle it. Thanks, and I'll let you know when I unprotect it.--Sean|Black 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Chad Smith, and I am the person who put up the article about Dr. DeYoung. I admit, I really didn't know what I was doing, so I didn't do a great job of meeting Wikipedia standards - in fact, I did a lousy job. However, I would respectfully ask for another chance.

I do believe that Dr. DeYoung is notable enough to be included on the Wikipedia. As I stated in my request to keep the article, Dr. DeYoung is a cohost of a nationwide television program. He is a published author, a nationwide radio talk show host, a regular guest on many national talk shows, both on television and radio, an accredited journalist, and a featured conference speaker.

You have stated on your user page that you seek to clean up articles and put them in a NPOV. I would ask for your help doing that. In the request for removal, someone said that it sounded like a press release, and that's pretty much what it was. I was ignorant as to how a Wikipedia article should be. I was hoping someone would come along and clean it up, or tell me how to clean it up. Instead it was removed.

I did some reading about the problem the Wikipedia has been having with someone flooding posts about LBU alumini. I am sorry about that. I am not that person, nor do I have any association with him or his group. It just so happens that Dr. DeYoung did receive a degree there.

If you need proof that I am not this Jason person, please let me know how I can prove it. My name is Chad Smith, I live in Chattanooga, TN, USA. You can easily look up my name and phone number online and give me a call and ask if I am who I claim to be. I work for Dr. DeYoung, he did not ask me to put up an article about him, until I told him about it, he didn't know what a Wikipedia was. I simply thought, (and still do), that he deserved an article. In his own field, Dr. DeYoung is quite well known. Please reconsider adding his article. I'd be happy to work on rewriting it so that it meets the criteria of this nobel work.

I'd like to thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia. I can see that you've put a lot of work into it, and it is important to you. I, too, believe it is an important work to put knowledge in the hands of the people - that is that everyone have free access to this information. That's why I work with OpenOffice.org, GIMPShop, and other open source projects, because I believe knowledge should be free. So, again, thank you for the work you've done to make the Wikipedia the best source of information on the Net. And whether or not you choose to allow a Jimmy DeYoung article to be included, I look forward to working with you in the future.

-Chad Smith [email protected] Chattanooga, TN 37421

Hello. I don't think you are Jason at all. What is your username? Consensus was reached on the article delete page to delete it so that's why I deleted it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My username is Chad78. May I ask - if I were to rewrite the article to be more NPOV and verifiable, could it be reconsidered for inclusion?

I don't know. If you want maybe you should wait a few days before creating the entry again. If it is tagged for deletion, it probably will be deleted again. Ask some of the main editors who voted delete or the person who nominated it for deletion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will do as youu suggest. Have a great day! - Chad78

Thanks for the congratulations and kind words of confidence. I shall do my best to fulfill your expectations. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you protected the page 1948 Arab Israeli war and depleted uranium. In future, would you please put list any pages protected on Wikipedia:Protected_page. Thanks. novacatz 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I forgot. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 13:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is a democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a consensus to delete so I can't do anything. Also wikipedia is not a democracy, but the vote shows that most people voted for the page to be deleted. Sorry. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support, and your congratulations! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anonymous editor, I'd like to request that when blocking a vandal that you make sure that you've signed as it helps to determine if it is an old block. For example if a new user lists the vandal at AIAV not knowing that they shoud be warned again before listing, it makes it easier to see if the vandal should be warned or/and removed from AIAV if the block is fresh. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, can you work with that intro? We need to move from a decent intro and sharpen up how we define things on the page. Marskell 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I had made chnages to the Kashmir page to make the conflict information more balanced and improve some of the grammar. Why did you revert it back to what it was? The view currently espoused isnt exactly the most blanced or well written, The changes I had made reflect the information also avaiable on the Kashmir conflict page. When I made the changes I had forgotten lo log in under my user name in case you are confused.

Nikhil

Hello. Many parts that were capitalized didn't need to be like saying "northern" or "northwestern". Also the plebiscite info about troop withdrawal would need sources because otherwise article can't keep balance. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonym,

Read article a(1) of the truce agreement, http://www.un.int/pakistan/15480813.htm and this is on pakistan's un mission website...so i'd say what i wrote was pretty balanced and what exists there is not:-)

Nikhil

Hi again. It says "simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control". This would apply to both forces wouldn't it? Then we should say both Pakistan and India rather than just Pakistan in that sentence It should say "The United Nations General Assembly unanimously voted in 1948 for both countries to withdraw". I didn't say that there wasn't a cease fire order, I meant both countries should be mentioned then. I should have made that clearer. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonym

Hi. I was referring to the truce agreement. The cease-fire was already applied.

If you read A below you will see what I mean. Also, India's position of not doing the plebiscite reflects from non-compliance (1).

Obviously that does not make India's position morally tenable, but that is the legal truth and the article does not reflect that.

A. (1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Nikhil

Hi again,

Since you have not replied to my comment, I will assume that you agree with me as I see edits after that by you. I removed all the references to the plebiscite as that is already referred to int the history of kashmir conflict which has more obbjective information..Looking at the talk pages for kashmir, people had earlier agreed to keep it controversy free, so I think this is in-line with that.

Nikhil

Hi Sorry I must have missed your last message. I am fine with moving the information. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undeleted Cat Butt which you speedy deleted. I put a note on the talk page explaining why:

This article was speedy deleted on January 27 after having been listed. The reason noted in the edit history is: db-band - article states that only one full-length album has been released. This doesn't meet WP:BAND which looks for two.. I restored it on the basis that WP:BAND is a guideline only, and not in itself a speedy delete criteria. Notability is asserted in the article through the discography and Although not achieving the success of other Sub Pop bands, they maintained a loyal cult following in the Pacific Northwest.

Have a good weekend. Leithp 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I didn't know how trustable it was, or I though maybe it was an ad for a small band since none of the band members had articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get info about the copyright ststus of an image . I was mainly interested in something like [1] or [2], for Sufism article . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Its not normally done, I think its essentially an ArbCom related only procedure, if nothing else because no one knows how to handle it.--Tznkai 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Philosophy cant be considered an art . I think its name should be changed to something more aaropriate . Like cultural aspects of Islam , or something better . With a better title , we would also be able to add Science & ecnomics to it . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah maybe we could put it on both or put the two lists together? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you agree with this general setting . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I was going to do the same thing and combine them into one about studies. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . I'll add more stuff & colors later when I get time. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected both science & arts templates , so there is no need to individually change all the articles . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir:

I believe that allegorical representations of the Mahdi in fiction would demonstrate the presence the idea has in popular conciousness. Perhaps if I mention the similarities between Kingdom Come's Batma with prominent myths regarding the Mahdi it would be more appropriate?

Please reply ASAP.

-Yusuf Mumtaz

Sure. Go ahead and add it but please make sure that everything has sources and is added to the right section. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anonymous editor,

re: "Isa" article; Before adding "by nature" to the article, I discussed it in the talk page but you didn't answer to it. Please provide reasons if you want to remove "by nature".Christianity believes that Jesus is the son of God by nature, however David is not so. This is the difference. Otherwise, Both Jesus and David were people of God. Christianity has a particular understanding of "son of God". Aminz 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

I answered on your talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Quran clearly states that Jesus is not the son of God, but it is clear from the context that Quran is only trying to say that Jesus is no more than a human being; that's it. Now I claim that if we do not include this, it will cause confusion. If we look at the previous edit made by "JBJ830726" we can see this: "This is may be because the title "Son of God" implies that Jesus is the greatest of the prohpets (saying the son instead of a son) whereas Muhammad is the greatest prophet."

I think my point should be somehow included in the article. Maybe adding a sentence explaining what Quran means by "son of God" or just adding "by nature". Aminz 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! "he was not the son of God but human" is a good enough. Aminz

Okay good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article on Abe Levy deleted? There is no reason to delete it...at all. It is an article about a person; there was no false information and nothing was made up.--WatchHawk 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't famous enough. "Abe Levy is the son of Suzanne Levy, a school teacher at Christian Heritage, and a journalist for the associated press." Not everyone can have an article. That's why it was put up for deletion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deal with this article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anonymous editor.

Thanks for turning your attention to the article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. I didn't place that sprotect tag there myself... I think it was done by someone a while back who wanted to protect the page, and thought that was the way to do it. Could you please protect the page for real? As you can see, anonymous users (not you, hehe) keep removing the image on the page.. which is central to the article. See the article's talk page for a consensus of opinion that the image should stay. Thanks a lot. EuroSong 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that a policy? That pages can't be sprotected if they're linked from the main page? Didn't know that... thanks for telling me :)Any idea why this policy is so? EuroSong 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind support of my Rfa, which, as you know, passed. If you should ever have any complaints about my admin actions, please let me know. Also, should you ever need my help with anything, please do not hesitate to ask! Thanks again! All the best Banez 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR: "The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians." Administrators aren't exempt! -- ChrisO 19:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a 3rr because it was a different version and one on which I made different edits. 3rr applies to a single version which is reverted to. I didn't revert to that version that time. So not a 3rr. See the diffs. Also ChrisO was involved on the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand unblocking is wrong. But I was trying to talk to the blocking admin and he doesn't seem to be listening here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated this block, as user didn't take the hint and when on to revert Muhammad as well. Unblocking yourself is discreditable--there are a number of ways to protest an unrighteous block. Demi ^T/_C 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I emailed him and put this message on my talk page but he never replied and he was involved in the edit war too along with two other editors. I was about to discuss my edits to the Muhammad page when my block was reinstated. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now nearly an hour after you posted this and I've not received any e-mails from you, so I don't think I can be blamed here. Plus I've answered all your queries on my own talk page, where you posted them. -- ChrisO 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the reblock at AN/I for additional administrators' attention. In a situation where you have unblocked yourself, my advice would be to explain before reverting a second time. In any case, I'm sure Muhammad will still be there in an hour. Demi ^T/_C 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with your actions Demi. Similarly Chris for some reason also keeps reverting on Muhammad all of a sudden. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. I hope all is well with you. Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do appreciate it. I am sorry if I sounded snarky. Cheers! Demi ^T/_C 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Demi. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For unblocking yourself, I award you the rouge admin badge. Wear it with pride!

(This is funny, laugh) Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipocrite. Was kinda accidental but thanks. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Tyler Carter for Afd and then realized it was a pretty-much complete copy of another article and a hoax. Isn't that grounds for speedy delete? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really it's a hoax? Of course that is grounds but I need some reasons. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Trish Stratus and this article side-by-side. They're identical except this Tyler Carter's name is subbed in for Trish Stratus' name. How could it not be a hoax? Two people lived identical lives? I figure the creator is reading all this and getting a pretty good laugh. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Done. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now put a formal vote up on Talk:Bill Graham if you wouldn't mind going to "mark an X" - Jord 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made the Abe Levy article is because in my article about my school, "Christian Heritage" I mention that the 8th grade school teacher, Suzanne Levy, is the mother of Abe Levy. So I made the article so people could know who he is and what he does. I'll try to get some more information about him, and I guess I'll put up an external link to an article he wrote.--WatchHawk 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is an encyclopedia, so the person has to be notable. If you can prove he is notable then that is fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign your message. additionally I didn't attack anyone, I just showed him the kind of argumentation he used himself. -- Powerpete 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same nonsense here. If you are interested, I think either protect it, or take part in ongoing discussion . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit war?? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do, I enter a discussion, I will be faced with the good old "deceiving muslims", "conspiracing muslims", "muslims R gonna enslave to world" kind of rants. I don't have that much time right now either. Maybe we should ask some other admin to interfere here too. It's the same old BS again & again, it's getting too boring. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are the admin, maybe a message should be left on the Admin notice board. By experience, I know Gren wouldn't like to interfere in this kind of crap. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really an edit war? It looked like 99% of the edits were being made by Pecher and Mike18xx, who appear to have pretty similar views.

Same old bullshit is right. In some areas Wikipedia seems to just amount to a soapbox for bigots. Palmiro | Talk 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked an admin whose dealt with this before to check it out. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup , its sad , but thats the way it is . Its important to notice that pecher calls all talmudic verses on the net as Anti-semite on Talk:Infidel . The same person comes to Dhimmi & fills the article with material that are no where to found other that Islamophobic sites . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88.105.24.134 has vandalized the cartoons controversy page almost ten times now. Wondering if you could get a ban on that IP for that? Utopianheaven 16:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your are talking about Mike18xx. The Infidel page looks not that bad in relative terms. I didn't spot any obvious 3RR's, but I may have missed them. I see personnal attacks in the edit summaries, but he's hardly the only offender (that's still no excuse, for anyone).

Dhimmi looks worse. There may well be some 3RR violations in there, but it's tangled; I can't say for sure by who or where. There is incivility (at least) on the talk page. I think protecting was a good call (likewise Infidel).

I'll watch both pages for a while, but that's about all I can do for now. Feel free to seek help from other more experienced admins. Maybe some kind of informal mediation would be useful. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him about personnal attacks. That's not actually racist is it? Isn't it an accusation of lying? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a consensus that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link should be buried in the middle of the article. It belongs at the bottom with the rest of the links. If I missed a consensus, please point it out to me.--Jbull 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that we disagree.

And you called the restoration of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons link to "See Also" "vandalism." By the same token, your removal of the link is vandalism.--Jbull 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I had an edit conflict with Kmf164 who already reverted the vandalism by 209.43.8.150. That's why I said "rv vandalism, and article already linked see talk page". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I apologize for calling your edit vandalism.--Jbull 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Abe Levy, I still don't know excatly what you mean by making it notable. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, we're here to write articles about events, people, groups, etc., and that's what I did. I put that he is the son of Suzanne Levy, and on my "Christian Heritage" article, I put that Mrs. Levy is his mother, so the main reason I wrote the Abe Levy article is so people could know who he is from the school article.--WatchHawk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are they famous in any way? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, well he's a well known writer for the AP, so I guess he is.--WatchHawk 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pushed the view to him that we do have a consensus on keeping the image, and pointed out - quite correctly - that Wikipedia is not a Muslim theocracy. That is not a personal attack on him. EuroSong 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is a defence. Where in my message did I speak badly of him? Nowhere. EuroSong 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that he was a member of a "bigoted Muslim theocracy". I just said that Wikipedia is not one. I don't know where he's from. he could be from Denmark for all I know. He could also be a nice and decent guy... I never said a word against that. I appreciate that you're trying to enhance the "calm" of what is undoubtedly a very heated debate, but please do not overreact, accusing me of "racism" and "personal attacks" when that is most certainly what I did not do. Thanks. EuroSong 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree and think it wasn't an insult that is your opinion but please be more polite when talking with other editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Manual of Style for headings, it says to avoid using links within headings. Pepsidrinka 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That article needs a big cleanup though. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't even realize what I was reverting. I've seen the other image bounced around so much I just assumed that was it. I have no idea what the other pic was of. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my vote, I was not aware that the other option called for a link to the image at the top. But even still, I'm staying with my vote. I don't feel too strongly about my vote because, just like Hypocrite, I just want the never-ending discussion to end. If that means moving the article to the middle then so be it. I, personally, won't be looking at the picture either way. As of right now, I can't think of better picture for the top of the article. joturner 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not every day I get marriage proposals.  :) Thanks for taking care of it, though it was minor, really. You should see some of the stuff I get. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was strange. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jorge Stolfi:

"Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case.

would you be able to comment on that . I have got no knowledge of it . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is wrong. I commented on it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to help with the discussion on Infidel & Dhimmi pages . I have got tonns of stuff going on in my life right now & I dont think I will be able to continue the discussion . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll watch the discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , while looking for some sources , I found a number of sites , may be you should see what is relevent for the discussion [3]. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be back soon . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an administrator and you should know better than delete images without due process. You have absolutely no right to delete an image that claims fair use without due process. I must apologise for using this sock puppet, but I am an established user and I do not want my name tainted or being threatened by radical muslims. Either way I spent considerable time improving that image, Cropping it, enhancing contrast. One the improved image the text was still unreadable and it had been resized to less than one thousand pixels in height. I urge you to restore the deleted image for now and send it through due process if you want it removed. Thank you GraphicArtist 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a copyrighted fair use image which is only allowed on Wikipedia with a low resolution. It was tagged for copyright violation and that is why I deleted it. That is the process for an image. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who tagged it for deletion? I dont have another copy, and for now, you can just resize it to the same size as the current image. GraphicArtist 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged by KimvdLinde and he left the message Copyright violation, is not a low resolution version and that is true. We have to respect copyrighted images. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record I tagged the Microsoft logo as copyvio . It's resolution is 1280 pixels in width. Are you going to delete it? The Mohammad image was only 1000 pixels tall. Now please restore the work on which I spent several hours or I will take my grievance somewhere else! GraphicArtist 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on freenode as user GraphicArtist2 if you want to talk to me. GraphicArtist 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that your hard work got lost but the image is fair use. Please see this [4] for what type of licence the image has. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware of copyright law (I'm a law Student), thanks for the link. Whatever peter wrote there does not matter, the only authoritative text is Template:Newspapercover. As I said the text of the newspaper was DELIBERATELY left unreadable, the image was only 1000 pixels tall. I will try to acces the image on my home computer. Now yould you please work with me in resolving this? What resolution do you propose I scale the updated version of the image? GraphicArtist 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what resolution. The current image was limited to its size because of resolution restrictions which is why I think that that is its limit for size under this particular fair use licence. If you can get permission for your resolution from the newspaper then that can solve the problem easily. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a pretty good argument that an image no taller than 1000 pixels can be considered fair use and web resolution since it can be shown on a Monitor screen at whole. A violation of the Fair Use doctrine would occour if the version of the images we had could be used for republishing. Thus if someone came to wikipedia, got the image, and used it for publishing. Here's what I propose: I'll upload the file AGAIN, copy this conversation over to the talk page, while you protect the updated image. Does that sound fair? GraphicArtist 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you didn't have another copy? However I will answer your question. Go ahead and upload the image. I however can not protect it. Is there a reason that you feel the image is necessary? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in your belief that permission would affect any image under fair use. Even if the publisher came out and said you are not allowed to use it, (as it's the case with AP images) we still may use them if fair use applies. I would STRONGLY suggest you no longer delte images unless you are sure of what you are doing. Read the previous entry and give me a response please. GraphicArtist 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at school, I dont have another copy *right now* but I'm trying to obtain one. Does the grandparent proposition sound ok then? GraphicArtist 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is protected. Another rationale is that makes it obvious an admin is aware of it. GraphicArtist 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have asked for a comment on your request. As soon as I get the response I will tell you. Bye. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must go to class in five minutes. I place the image at Image:Image-Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png. Talk it out, when you are done please protect the image and rename it to Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.png GraphicArtist 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:

• Image:Wilsonvillespokesmanlecarticle.jpg
• Image:Boar01.jpg
• Image:The_Tech.jpg
• ... (work in progress...

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was told before that reverting vandalism did not count for the 3RR KimvdLinde 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule page andit is stated that:

This rule does not apply to:

• self-reverts
• correction of simple vandalism

Do I mis something?

--KimvdLinde 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the page I mentioned above is incorrect? KimvdLinde 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, normally, correction of simple vandalism can be carried out as often as needed. And on this page for the image also because of the special nature. Good to know. KimvdLinde 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the copyright issue. It is a copyright violation regardless. The Danish newspaper allows a single personal copy for persons (and make explicite that it is not for companies or anything else) [5]. The e-mail says that the cartoonists needs to be approached [6], and I have not seen any evidence that that has happened . Wikipedia says it also, the question that remains is whether it is fair use (assuming it is at a US based server, as it propably does not apply to countries outside the USA):

Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow a photograph to be used. (Wikipedia:Copyright#Image_guidelines)

So, as there is no copyright obtained (see above), the question is whether this constitutes fair use. The copyright disclaimer at the image page says:

The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright, eg, there is no risk this image can be taken and republished on another newspaper. [7]

I loaded the image in some image software, and I could without much loss of quality enlarge the image by 100%. And based on my experiences (although limited), the quality of the images is such that reasonable (although smaller) copies can be made, in full color and at sufficient resolution. That violates the not-republishable clause and in that sense, I would say that it is not fair use of the cartoons. But what would a judge say? Than comes the whole larger context in paly, such as the extreme controversy it invoked, etc. And in that sense, the outcome is completly unpredictable. (And the final question, will this result in court case over copyright issues, not likely because there are so many copies in high quality that go over the internet at locations you can not tough them (Belarus for example), that these cartoons will probably remain there for a VERY long time.)

BTW, other images that have the same characteristics as this image (see the list at the image page), does not imply that other images automatically can be considered "fair use".

• The two edited versions are explicitly covered by AP ( link and link)
• One manipulated is a private picture ( link)
• Two sceenshots are from game/movie, and only a fraction of the work, not the whole cartoon, which makes it fair-use ( link and link)

That leaves three newspaper covers, and based on the wikipedia criteria, they might also violations of fair use.

I still think this image is a violation of copyright and fair use, but everything revolves around whether the image is good enough to make reproduce. I think it is good enough, but others diagree apparently.

--KimvdLinde 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand --- I didn't remove any answer. It's possible that we were editing at the same time and that there was an edit conflict. In that case, you may have THOUGHT that you saved your edit, but in fact the SAVE failed. That's happened to me. Please add your answer again. Zora 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all his edits to Succession to Muhammad yesterday, and just now reverted all his edits to Abu Bakr. In each case the Shi'a view is given at length, and it is not necessary to pepper the rest of the article with caveats and provisos.

I am less disposed to be indulgent with agenda-driven Shi'a editors when they start questioning matters that are accepted by ALL academic authorities. Abu Bakr wasn't an important Muslim and one of Muhammad's trusted lieutenants? Huh? Zora 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I reach my 10,000th edit I'll be sure to return the flavor, thank you so much for bestowing me with such a kind honor. I feel so grateful! I am so happy that someone has done such a nice thing for me!:

I want to give you the Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for your achievement and for being one of the best Wikipedians I know. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine by the way, I'll give you another one:

Obrigado, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Arigato, Thanks! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining barnstars! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]