Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to Fitna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made to the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

Split

[edit]

Split article from Fitna (film) look there for gfdl of editors.(Hypnosadist) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in Post-Response section

[edit]

As per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Is this an example of decorative usage?, I have reinstated flags. Kapowow (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you should by now realize that you shouldn't be making changes that you know are still being discussed. I will revert the flagicon implementation until the conclusion of that discussion. Await the conclusion and/or consensus before inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kapowow is correct this has been clearly discussed at Fitna_Film and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Is this an example of decorative usage?. Your obstructionism at this point could be misconstrued as personal and retributive as you have offered NO discussion of your own whatsoever here. As I discussed this at length with the community at Fitna_Film I believe I can firmly state that this has found consensus in multiple forums and has been fully supported. It really is not normal to have have put forth no argument of any kind, no reason, nothing, to reopen the issue. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this have to be so antagonistic? I mean, how important are these flags anyway? And how does conflating a flags discussion with a user conduct dispute help us improve the article? Flags are largely a matter of taste anyway (and yes, I am aware of the FLAG guideline discussion, and am rather opposed to guideline change discussions by editors whose POV is entangled with ongoing article talk page discussion.) Points of order: (1) I can sort of understand when newbies make a big fuzz about such minor points (2) experienced editors giving off an example of how not to conduct oneself give off the wrong message (obviously). On a personal note, I think these flags are making the article less readable even though I'm the visual type that prefers icons over text in long lists. FWIW. Avb 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added them myself, the discussion is over, no-one else agrees with you Arcayne. (Hypnosadist) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same three people who disagreed with me there disagree with me here, and this is the consensus you are talking about? With respect, I've just been to the article page, and it doesn't appear to be concluded by any stretch, and consensus just isn't there yet. If you wish to find a consensus, I suggest you head there and build one, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three people here, including me, plus two from there = 5 against one. Sounds like consensus. From 52 Pickup:
"This sort of setup appears to be common for listing international reactions to certain events (e.g. International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence) or other lists (e.g. List of countries and outlying territories by total area)."
Sounds like precedent the way in which they are used.
Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please await conclusions to discussions before trying to force your POV, please. Consensus isn't quite there yet. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "pro-flag", for the record. StaticGull  Talk  11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, but it doesn't follow policy or guidelines. Adding the pictures simply because 'they are purdy' isn't an encyclopedic reaction. They do not aid in navigation, they do not assist in the understanding of the subject, and fail every criteria presented inthe summary for WP:FLAG, so they cannot be added. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm against all use of flags on Wikipedia. I wish they were completely forbidden. One man's symbol of patriotism may be another man's really really bad vibrations. --RenniePet (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here flags are used to identify countries and organizations, not to express patriotism. MantisEars (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are identified by their name. Your claim would only make sense if you were advocating using flags instead of names. Flags are symbols of patriotism, that's why it's almost impossible to find a picture of an American politician without 10 American flags in the background. But I'm not really interesting in debating the matter, I'm just casting my vote, and stating my opinion that I wish flags were completely forbidden on Wikipedia. --RenniePet (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Countries are identified both by their name, and their flag. For many people, it is easier to scan an article looking for a flag than a name. Flags can also be a symbol of patriotism, but that is an inappropriate way to use flags on Wikipedia. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a democracy and what matters is the strength of your argument, not the number of votes in your favor. MantisEars (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is for a complete prohibition on Wikipedia - As a user who has agreed to consensus as a standard you must accept the implied utility of flags. They exist and are a Wiki accepted practice - the question to you is does this usage follow consensus and accepted practice. Your argument for prohibition is not suitable here and should be done at the "Usage of Flags" discussion.
I continue to Strongly Support this particular usage which has found consensus and been considered a settled issue at three forums. 75.58.40.232 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am sorry - I keep forgetting that you are new here. Consensus is what we choose to make of it, anon user. As you can clearly see, people are still weighing in here and in the three forums (perhaps you missed the revert that noted you should 'await the conclusion of discussion'); maybe for once you should actually await the end of a discussion before jumping the gun and presuming your edit is the right way to go.
You are allowed to 'strongly agree,' strongly disagree, whatever. That's part fo discussion, too. You don;t hear me telling you to shut your pie hole, coz we don't hear from you any more; we are willing to let you continue to debate your point of view. See, this is how Wikipedia works; maybe you should brush up on WP:CONSENSUS to understand how it works, how it evolves, etc. I mean, if you need schooling on wiki subject, find someone to ask. As I am rather busy at the moment, I am afraid I cannot assist you in developing your wiki knowledge past pointing you towards given policies and guidelines. Maybe try the 'adopt me' template, and some kindly old editor or admin will come along and get you all caught up with the rest of us. Until then, please allow everyone to speak their mind (also known as discussion), okey-doke? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When is a discussion ever over for Arcayne? When you "win"? What is your objective on Wikipedia?75.58.40.232 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make this about me all you want. Its actually about policy and guidelines. Its also about waiting for everyone to get their piece said and either be proven or disproven by those aforementioned policies and guidelines. We don't arbitrarily en d them because we don't think the other person's argument is agreeable to our own. Be patient, little grasshopper. As for my objective on Wikipedia? I thought that was obvious. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As for my objective on Wikipedia? I thought that was obvious. " Cute. It is obvious.75.58.40.232 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As for my objective on Wikipedia? I thought that was obvious" threatening and insulting people perhaps? Isn't "Be patient, little grasshopper" ever so slightly an insulting and personal attack? "Make this about me all you want" - no need. Kapowow-on-holiday (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne have you found anyone who agrees with you yet, Its clear from all three forums that the concensus is for the flags to be included. (Hypnosadist) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go ahead and re-add them, then? StaticGull  Talk  11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead in my opinion, 2 weeks is an aeon in wikipedia time. (Hypnosadist) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, eyeballing the WP:FLAG MOS might help folk keep abreast of developments in guidelines. Consensus appears to have changed in the matter.. Their usage in this article is decorative. However, in order to avoid this trivial matter, I will convert to prose the bullet-point nature of this article, thus removing the need for the flag icons. Bullet-pointed reaction articles are just lazy editing (and I am not pointing to any editor here). Other articles have been converted to better articles in this way, and this one shall follow suit. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) lists:

Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once.

Flags seem in place in this article. StaticGull  Talk  18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as has been noted in the discussion page there, many times (as well as demonstrated by Moonridden girl), it isn't necessary for navigation. As a navigational aid, flags might work. Flagicons do not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne, you seem to be unsure of the meaning of consensus. One person on the WP:FLAG discussion page appears to have similar views to your own, only now. Nowhere has it been said that big, massive flags aid in navigation; always has it been said that flagicons do. Please elaborate as to who or what this "Moonridden girl" is, as I can find no mention searching the WPFLAG page. The vast majority of editors here and at WPFLAG agree in flagicons' usage where appropriate, as with this article. Unless you, Arcayne, are able to clean up the article here, and convert it into 'prose' which would negate the need for clearer navigation, it appears as though I shall reinstate flagicons, as consensual agreement, logic, clarity and style dictates. I hate talking to you Arcayne, as you make me watch every word and check every sentence, lest I offend you and receive apparantly authentic, yet totally unsubstantiated, threats here, or on my userpage, that wreak havoc with common sense, ease of editing, and waste vast amounts of time. The simple fact is that consensus indicates flagicon use is warranted, acceptable, appropriate and useful on this specific article, and unless you can persuade people with the force of your argument, instead of the force of threats and other subversive linguistic tactics, then they shall be reinstated post haste. I am sorry that your jaunt into this debate was less than successful for you, but don't shoot the messenger. Accept your fate. Kapowow (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

[edit]

Proposal: The use of flags as a navigational aid in this article

  • I support the use of flags as a navigational aid in this article, as it is rather hard to navigate now. StaticGull  Talk  11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I imagine you would have similar difficulty with other articles that deal with international reactions without the tiny little flagicons elsewhere. If you wish to revise the role that flagicons have in Wikipedia articles, you should feel free to address that consideration at either The Village Pump or at WP:FLAG. As it stands, flagicon usage isn't really that useful here, and the article is it presently exists is more encyclopedic without the distracting tiny images. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This issue has been resolved. Take it up at WP:VP if you want, and force a policy change that encompasses all of Wikipedia if you can. The use of flagicons here at International reaction to Fitna has been archived at WP:FLAG; consensus has been reached. DO NOT revert the addition of flagicons, Arcayne, unless you change Wikipedia Policy. A one-man mission to remove flags cannot stand up here and has no basis. No-one cares about your individual preference - even less so when the weight of consensus and policies are against you. Your dislike for flags is of no concern here, and waging a one-man war in absolute defiance of policy, guidelines and consensus can be seen in a very negative - and possibly disruptive - light. Kapowow (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, put a civil tongue in your head - your temper will almost certainly lead to some unpleasant consequences for you. Uncivil, aggressive language is certainly disruptive.
Secondly, the article was rewritten so as to avoid the need for flagicons. This is a good thing, Kapowow. It isn't about you winning or me winning, but about the article winning. The article is better off without the flagicons. You don't have consensus here, didn't have it in WP:FLAG, and you aren't going to get it by being rude and attack-y. If you really feel the need to press the issue, seek out a request to have the article seen by a neutral admin, and get their input here. It s called mediation. If you are as confident that your version is better, please head on over to submit a request at Requests for Mediation. I will participate in the mediation. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your assertions that consensus had not been found preposterous, when that is clearly not the case. You want mediation, fine. I think you are doing this only to have your personal view that flags are not worthwile imposed on all. the article had not been rewritten at all. Another lie. Kapowow (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are going to find your comments get ignored less if you add a bit of civility onto them. It isn't all that hard, and it doesn't get you into trouble. For example, calling people's assertions "preposterous" implies that you don't really know the definition of the word. As well, using that word to attack another editor tends to be perceived as uncivil. Secondly, you will always find it helpful to actually read the edit history of an article to ascertain whether something is a "lie" (another uncivil characterization, btw). The article was re-written by Moonriddengirl here, on April 15th. Now, I can understand that you are a tad upset, but you really need to be more civil. If I have to warn you about this again, you will be displeased with the consequences. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preposterous. Your threats are preposterous; your assertions preposterous; your "proof" preposterous. Preposterous.Kapowow (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne have you requested a mediation as you said in your edit summary? I can't find it, please post a link. If not i'm going to revert back, you are the only person who wants these flags out of here. (Hypnosadist) 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I hadn't, as I suggested that someone (specifically Kapowow) might be interested in submitting one. Since you seem to be of the opinion that I am the only one in the whole of Wikipedia who thinks the flagicons are crufty as all get out, I will be delighted to submit a request for mediation. I will do so tomorrow, in mid-morning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the Mediation material, I doscovered that it might not be what we need just yet, and that we should try to utilize the less formal MedCab request, and see where that gets us. towards that end, I have filed a request for the Mediation Cabal to come and lend a hand. The first step, the Request for Comment, was one fo the first steps, but as it wasn't worded bery neutrally, it might have kept a lot of users away. I will give the original poster a change to re-write it as as to aim more for a neutral position. If nothing happens tomorrow, I will probably re-submit it with appropriately neutral language (If confusion exists to how to be more neutral and civil in listing an RfC, please feel free to ask). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment

[edit]

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_flags_in_articles/Archive_3#Is_this_an_example_of_decorative_usage.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_flags_in_articles/Archive_3#Flagicon_usage_issue A third opinion has been sought and found to be unneccesary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_flags_in_articles/Archive_3#Third_opinion

Consensus seems to have been found, yet Arcayne (talk · contribs) continues to remove all flags.

Mediation

[edit]

You Rang? :-) Please consult the medation page Prom3th3an (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/wilders-and-his-film-worry-dutch-expats
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International reactions to Fitna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reactions_to_Fitna&oldid=1207727203"