User talk:C12H22O11/archive03

This page is an archive of C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁'s talk page. Further comments should be made on my main talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

This archive contains 25 discussions between the dates of 04 September and 20 September 2005. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the actual opinions of anyone. - sucrose (C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁)

Old messages on this talk page are archived at my talk archives:

• archive 01 (18 Apr 2005 - 17 Aug 2005)
• archive 02 (18 Aug 2005 - 04 Sep 2005)
• archive 03 (04 Sep 2005 - 20 Sep 2005)
• archive 04 (10 Oct 2005 - 07 Nov 2005)
• archive 05 (08 Nov 2005 - 24 Dec 2005)
• archive 06 (25 Dec 2005 - 13 Jan 2006)
• archive 07 (14 Jan 2006 - 28 Feb 2006)
• archive 08 (01 Mar 2006 - 22 May 2006)
• archive 09 (25 May 2006 - 06 Jul 2006)
• archive 10 (22 Jul 2006 - 28 Aug 2006)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism

Hey, you addressed why you think it others' arguments for delete were bad... but, you didn't say what your argument is. Do you believe it is a notable book? or what do you think the outcome should be. Do you agree with Slim Virgin's assessment or Klominus' or what? gren グレン 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure. I don't know if you've had dealings with Klominus before, but he was, aptly in my opinion, described as venmous. That kind of article tends to bring about a group of people chafing at the bit to see articles portraying Islam in such a way. I have thus far abstained because of being torn between my basic inclusionism and my fear that the article will be misused. In any case you might want to clarify your statements on the page so people know why. gren グレン 11:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. You can surely find patterns in editors and when an editor's main work to wikipedia is portraying Islam negatively, as is some users' whole job here then there is a problem. When I am called an apologist I at least show dedication with my work to new articles / dead end pages / album project. However, when a user is constantly embroiled in controversy and takes no more effort to help other things I feel it is completely justified to take their motives into account. Why doesn't The History of Love: A Novel by Nicole Krauss have an article when it's #102 in Amazon sales while the Islam-Nazi book was created by Klominus is ranked #300,000+ and has no scholarly credibility? When I came here a tried to think that way but I found users do act in certain patterns. gren グレン 21:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position and all, but this isn't because he's Klominus. This is because he has once again decided to embroil himself in controversy over this kind of issue. I think when your edits turn into a revert war or constant (legitimate) deletion attempts they are typically less useful then edits that don't. I don't know where your main body of edits lie... but, if you know something about Islam join in trying to edit Islam-related articles... you will find many highly respected editors leave or take breaks (IFaqeer, Mustafaa, Dab, etc.). If we took every edit as good faith after overwhelming evidence that some things just aren't then it would take twice as much time... time that is already spent debating issues that shouldn't have to be debated if we are truly creating an encyclopedia. Just join any controversy where editors come to basically troll. In any case, I understand your point. And none of this is so important. :) gren グレン 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

VfD Campaign against books critical to Islam

Recently I've been filling out the category Category:Books critical of Islam with articles about a contemporary books that are critical of Islam. One would think that documenting a verifiyable sub genre of books would not cause offense. But sadly this is not the case. I urge all wikipedian's concerned with having an encyclopedic encyclopedia to look at the following articles and their VfD's. While The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism is not an especially notable book (But it is verifable), the books by Mark A. Gabriel are both above 25,000 on the Amazon.com ranking which makes them notable as well. Klonimus 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism
• Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad
• Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

Thanks

Contrary to what some editors may think, I have nothing against Islam or muslims. However I am concerned with the problem of the Islamic terrorism, and and the self proclaimed conflict between the west and the ummah as proclaimed by a sizable fraction of the community. Somewhat related to this is the problem of political correctness, which prevents an open and honest discussion of the problems inside the ummah and its relationship to west. It is my personal belief that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

A small faction of wikipedians, (including some admins) take offense at anything that is perceived to be critical of Islam, even if it is factual and verifiable. If you beleive Islam to be worthy of belief, than it follows that Islam ought to be able to hold its own in the marketplace of idea's on it's own merits. And not because all opposition and critical views have been supressed.

I view of the actions of the "Islamosympathists" to suppress articles critical of Islam or the actions of segments of the ummah as betraying fear and doubt about the ablity of Islam to stand up to critical scrutiny and close examination. Klonimus 00:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus 00:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

I am sorry. I didn't understand the meaning of Vfd. In any case, what kind of screening process is that? A concept that is well recognized by all legal professionals is deleted by laymen??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.99.84 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 September 2005 (EET) (UTC)

Thanks. I still do not understand how can non-professional users determine with such confidence that a professional term is neologism. This raises very serious doubts about the screening process. 132.74.99.84 11:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Nonetheless, there are many methodological flaws in the current AfD process:

First, a vote of 5 people, even 10, cannot be deemed representative, hence reliable.

Second, the current system enables lobbyists and members of strong groups to decide what's important and what's not. That's how censorship begins.

Third, the voters are not specialists in all scientific disciplines. How can they evaluate scientific concepts then? It seems that the votes are based on prior knowledge and perhaps a google search. But that is not enough. There are many esoteric notions that are not known to common people and cannot be found in an ordinary web search. 132.74.99.84 12:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Just another thanks for saying Hi.

Thanks for saying hi and for the tips. Unklelemmy 22:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)unklelemmy

re: Welcome

Hello. Thanks for your greetings. Are you an administrator? Is Ulayiti a real name? (oops Dr.Genius 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

Well, good luck in that. I have seen that most voters support you. I guess you earned that. Probably means you are dedicating lots of time to this project. Once again good luck, and thanks for the greetings. I am logging off now. Dr.Genius 23:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ulayiti:
Thanks for support and comments in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

You reverted a revert I made because you believe that I can't use them for that purpose. Well actually, I can. Read the second bulleted paragraph under "General Notes" in Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit#General_Notes to see why I am allowed to do that.

142.33.70.36 19:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Signature

I don't mean to be a nag, but... I noticed you use a sig template to sign your posts. This is something frowned upon (though not forbidden. Click [[WP:%7E%7E%7E%7E#Appearance|here]] for more information). Everything you put on your sig template page could be moved to your nickname. (Go to preferences. Change your nickname to your signature, html and all. Click Raw Signature and click save). It's your choice if you want to change it. I just wanted to recommend it. Cheers! Acetic'^Acid 21:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Good luck! — Dan | Talk 14:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats!

Looking forward to seeing you on our RC-Patrol runs, with your newly-issued rollback and block tools. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 15:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your adminship, and may you get your city up to FA status in celebration. I was hoping to make you my first bureaucrat promotion (read guinea-pig), but unfortunately I wasn't around after the voting had expired. So once again enjoy! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Allow me to reiterate what others have said and congratulate you once again on receiving administrative privileges here on Wikipedia. It has been a pleasure seeing you around. Hall Monitor 17:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Hey congratulations, you certainly deserve it! the wub "?/!" 19:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me, too. And thanks for the support on my RfA — keep an eye on me and logs while I learn my around! -Splash 14:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your promotion! I hope that this feels like a validation of your previous contributions to the Wikipedia... you're one of my role models! For the help you have given me previously, I award you this:

A Barnstar!

The Order of the Smiley is bestowed on Ulayiti for assisting newcomers with the improvement of articles by Mamawrites (a newcomer herself) on this 11th day of September in the year 2005, in celebration of Ulayiti's promotion to admin.

Mamawrites 11:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:City of Funchal.jpg

Hi Ulayiti, the nearby mountain from which your photo was taken is Cabo Girao. Most of the houses belong to Câmara de Lobos, only the houses at the second bay (at the darker hill in the background) belong to Funchal. So the title City of Funchal is somewhat misleading. It would be better to put the picture into the articles Câmara de Lobos and/or Cabo Girao and remove it from the article Funchal. MRB 17:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Congratulations on being an adm.! It's great to have more guys mopping the dirty floor of Wikipedia! It was my pleasure to support you. Molotov (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

L'angwic

The L'angwic page is still under construction. and I have submitted the L'angwic site(s) to Google's URL crawl many times, over two months ago, and if it's still not on the hit list then that's not my fault. Langwic 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Currently there are 20 speakers, it has not been mentioned in the media, but has been shown to many Linguistics professors.

There are only two developers and we are both busy with school.

If you choose to delete it then ok, but I, amongst other people think it deserves recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langwic (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Gratz

No problem, I'm confident that you will make a great admin, Derktar 00:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC).

Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:C12H22O11/archive03/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupAdminLinks=true;

Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys Page

Hi..I would like to ask people to check the Pet Shop Boys Page now and its older version and decide for themselves whats the better of the two.Some user named Joinks seemed to have edited page according to his likes and its not as attractive as before.I would like to hear your choice and then i would ask wiki admsns to revert to the better version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoo (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the beautiful butterfly!

I hope we'll have a chance to work together in the future. I'm really enjoying learning the ropes here. Mamawrites 13:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

A thanks for the support on my admin nomination. I'm now WP's newest admin. CG 18:18, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Question

"Deletion log

• 00:57, 10 September 2005 Ulayiti deleted "Antoshi" (content was: '#redirectuser:Antoshi' (and the only contributor was 'Antoshi'))"

Why was this article deleted when 1) It was empty beforehand and 2) It was a redirect to a Userpage. Other people have done that before. Please reply, if possible to my Usertalk page. --Antoshi 22:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android79 22:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Sig and RFA

Actually, that makes sense that you would want to remove the link to your RFA after it closed. But, thank you for not using the template anymore.

Congratulations on your promotion to sysophood! Wield the soggy mop with pride. Acetic'^Acid 05:30, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks awfully

Ta for supporting my RfA, much appreciated. I'll try to contribute more to wikipedia namespace (give it some time, though) and hope to bring the benefit of years of experience of tactfully sorting out recalcitrant contractors to bear in the gentler arena of wikipedia. As it happens I note your enthusiasm for Phil K Dick and wondered if you could remind me of which story has martian colonists being entertained by versions of John Dowland songs (by Linda Foxx, if memory serves) beamed down from a satellite? Anyway, Flow my Teares makes a good backing sound for reading Dick....dave souza 00:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You've solved it! Even after your hint, I first tried looking in the short stories to hand, but then tried The Divine Invasion which seems to match my fragmented memory pretty well. OK, it's not on Mars, which may have misdirected me. This has been a longstanding niggle, and that's the last book I thought of looking in, so many thanks again. While I do have Flow My Tears on CD, the songs in the Divine Invasion are different, so those and the rest of the short stories will go on my get sometime list (if I'm not swamped in kipple first). Gratefully yours, ...dave souza 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Opposition, Criticism, or Anti-

With the exception of Islam, most major religions have "Anti-". For example, Anti-Judaism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism. The problem with the title "Opposition to Mormonism" is that it is tooo POV. Opposition to illegal drugs, opposition to racisim, ok. How POV can you get about the pros and cons of racism? LoL. The only diehard opponents to Mormonism are other Christians. The old title assumes that all people are opposed to the religion, or that few people question reasons for its opposition, which is just not true. Anyway, I would like for you to edit the Criticism of Islam article. The article is accessible via the Islam template. As it currently stands, the article makes little attempt at being non-POV. --JuanMuslim 04:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made on my main talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.