User talk:Mootros/Archives/2010/May

Angela Laich

Guten Tag!

Thank You very much for recommendations about the references, i have improved by this way also the article in Russian language. Now will see step by step what is about the photos and how to load them. Will ask the questions, if have some difficulties. Mit freundlichen Grüß, Farmount1989 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sehr gut/ Excellent! The article is coming along quite nicely. I've raised some additional issues at the articles talkpage Talk:Angela Laich. Please have a look, if you may. Yours, Mootros (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Template:Muslims and controversies. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Muslims and controversies‎‎ templates

Hi, Please do not re-add Speedy Delete tags to either of the about templates, I do not feel that any of the the possiable criteria would apply, if you wish to nominate for deletion then please go through the WP:TfD. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. very useful link! Mootros (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic Density

Hi. I have taken your "hoax" tag off this article, rather sadly because it read like the sort of hoax article I enjoy debunking, and I hoped to chase up some of the references and show that you were right; but this and this show that Durkheim did indeed use the term as described. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Yes, I am aware that Durkheim actually used this term in some of this writings. However, I am not sure whether this actually constitutes a sociological concept in itself. There is no mentioning of Durkheim in the intro. It is also unclear how Morton fits into the story. Where does population come into play? Who are the sociologists hwho have used this concept? If not a hoax, surely it must be original research. Mootros (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article could certainly be clearer, but the second link in my note above gives a lot of references to other people using the term or discussing Durkheim's use of it - I looked on as far as the fifth page of that listing, and though there were a few about air traffic control, the great majority were in reference to this (Durkheim's) use. I think that's enough to show that the concept is probably notable, and anyway the article isn't a hoax in the intent-to-deceive sence. JohnCD ([[User

talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a hoax -- thanks for establishing this. Please have a look at its talk page for some further discussion. Mootros (talk)

Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49)

Hello,

I'm very sorry but I had to undo your recent changes in the article. The policy states quite clearly that the subject should be bold, plus the WWI article has bold on all the other names such as: World War I, First World War, the Great War, the World War (prior to the outbreak of World War II), and the War to End All Wars in its lead, so I think that is the accepted convention. Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for contacting me. No problem! I guess it might be matter of taste in style. It looks rather messy, especially with all the different scripts offset against the font changes. The policy clearly states the subject should be bold in the first sentence and should be avoided at all if it is descriptive. I will now leave this to your discretion to review the issues. Let me add, you did an excellent job in getting this article to its current shape. Well done! Best wishes, Mootros (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That is what I thought at first too, but after looking around I found that many others have the same format so I just replicated it. Again, Thank you for the kind words, and Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Research Fellow

FYI, I semi-protected the article for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption continues. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mootros (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the disruption continuous, now from a user account. I have placed a RfC, to substantiated the case with the help of other editors. Mootros (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. You might find it easier to seek a third opinion since an RfC takes time and there is no guarantee that you'll get enough outside opinions. Still, I guess it is worth a shot. (Also, since no one is hiding behind IPs, this is not really disruptive anymore.) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to look over the still ongoing dispute. I hope that the discussion would soon resolve the issues. Mootros (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Mootros (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Font sizes too big for the Satanic controversies, Namus, Honor killings, plus extra line breaks (too tall) in some places. I agree with your changes where you took out the bottom portion, but Stoning is gone (Rajm should be the link. ). I see you took out the Persecution links and thats fine. Maybe there should be a new template now that links controvery related stuff like Boobquake and so on because yes, these are controversies related to Islam and Muslims and should be linked in some way. Or revert everything back - what do you think. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me about this. No problem about Rajm and formatting issues. I am very concerned about the use of the terms controversy. A controversy is a prolonged public debate. A good example is Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or The_Satanic_Verses_controversy. Most events do not fit this the idea of prolonged public debate. The term controversy tends to confused with its media connotation of "scandal", which from experience created random list of everything related to Islam and Muslims that had ever cropped up in the media: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversies related to Islam. As to whether Boobquake is a controversy, I would say it certainly was a public event (one day), but I cannot see any evidence that people are or were debating about the causal relationship between adultery and natural disasters, as a matter of opinion. This causal relationship is nowadays not an opinion but a well established fact. Or were there really some Iranian Hojatoleslams arguing their point? It was a fun event to point to some controversial ideas; maybe a form of feminist critique of backward forms of Islam. Or could that be a new template itself? Mootros (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)s

I am puzzled why the template Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar links to the article Criticism of Islam which does itself not even use the template, but another one called Template:Islam. Are these just forks? Mootros (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the 'controversy' stuff and I knew something had to be done but didnt know what. Criticism of Islam is currently using the Islam template but should use the Criticism of Islam sidebar template. I was talking to another editor about that who wanted the Islam template. He was making it so people dont see that template. I think when one arrives at the C of Islam, they should be presented with the template that allows them to further study the issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. A point of observation: the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar used in the article Criticism of Islam would horizontally link to other articles on the specific topic of criticisms, whereas the Template:Islam links vertically to articles on the broader topic of Islam. I am not sure myself at the moment what would be the best; perhaps we need to investigate this further: E.g. Help:Template or the similar usage elsewhere. Mootros (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

[2010 anti-government demonstrations in Bangkok]

Hello Mootros,

I read your article on 2010 anti-government demonstrations in Bangkok. The article seems good and reasonably balanced. Thank you! However, I think the article should do more to point out that the red-shirts have admitted to being financed by Thaksin, that many or most protesters are being paid by the day, and that the red-shirts are using military weapons recklessly.

Please make these corrections. Do let's not need an "edit war." Thank you. Jamesdowallen (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, Thanks for contacting me. It's not my article; many people have contributed. If you have any source on "admitted to being financed by Thaksin" please let me know. We shall add them. In the meantime have a look here at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, Wikipedia:Embedded_citations and on general issues here: WP:BOLD. Many thanks, Yours Mootros

PS: A warm welcome to Wikipedia. I like your motto: Make edits not edit-wars!

Hi Mootros. Here's the link you requested

 http://bangkokpost.com/news/local/37474/udd-leader-admits-protest-funds-come-from-thaksin

As to my claim that rural protestors are being paid, I live in rural Thailand and have heard it with my own ears. (If convenient, I hope you'll make the changes rather than waiting for me.) Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No discussion prior to changing name of article?

Why no discussion prior to changing the name of the article? "Anti-government" doesn't capture the fact that it called for early elections, which wasn't anti-government, per se. Patiwat (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I am sorry, I did not see that discussion until I had move it. I thought it was a non-controversial move, just qualifying the word political. Why, do you think these are not protests against the government? Mootros (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What discussion? There was no discussion. You seem to have made the change without discussing it or informing anybody ahead of hand. I'd rather not call it anti-government, because in case the government falls due to one reason or another and the yellow shirts rally, then... well, I'm not sure what we should call it. Other than 2010 political protests. The tides of Thai politics have proven to turbulent to give rallies any particular label immediately after they occur. Bloody May (1992) was only called that some time after things settled down. But note that this discussion should occur BEFORE a change in article name occurs, not after. Please revert the article name and continue this discussion in the article discussion page. Patiwat (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. I thought you meant this discussion [[1]], which I did not see. None controversial moves are not normally discussed. They are just done. If you think this was a controversial move that's perfectly fine. I in the beginning assumed otherwise. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that discussion either. It seems the very limited consensus supported keeping the old name for now. I'd still consider it controversial for now. Patiwat (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Research fellow

Hello, Mootros. You have new messages at Talk:Research fellow.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. As I said on the article talk, I'm out of that discussion. Please don't include me any longer. De728631 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Dear Mootros. I understand you are trying to be constrcutive too, however your changes are considered biases too and therefore it is best to focus on the discussion now. Thanks for sharing the Dialogue. Yours Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"MOS states to use abbreviation on first occurence. "OR" in language doesnt necessirly mean more prominent than other. Even if more prominent, how does that hurt ?!"

What are you talking about?

research fellow article. You should have already noticed.

Have you not noticed there are two differnt debates going on?

Yes, and I was wondering why you are touching issues that are stil under debates.

The one about the use of aberrations; the other about the order how to list the two examples?

What is the hurt stuff?

Even if more prominent, how does that affect the RF topic ?

hope you can understand it this way, if not, please let me know what language you speak

Are you in pain?

what do you mean ?!!!

Kushsinghmd (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Political crisis in Thailand (2008–2010)

(Reverted undiscussed move *again*; old name, which places the noun last, conforms better to article title guidelines)

Hi, Sorry I didn't think this was a controversial move. Where does it say the noun should be last? Why? Many descriptive article titles end with brackets. Mootros (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone already reverted you (they did), it's a controversial move and you should discuss the name change you want on the talkpage first. If it was not a controversial move, no one would revert you, twice. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Mootros (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranting loony

'LISTEN CAREFULLY:

DONT DELETE MY COMMENT. IF YOU DONT LIKE THEM THATS YOUR OWN PROBLEM. HAVENT YOU HEARD ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ?????? DONT EVER STRIKE OUT A SINGLE WORD OF MINE. EIther comment or KEEP SILENT. 'Bold text'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Warning

On the currently named "user:Kushsinghmd & User:Mootros" discussion on WP:ANI, you have struck another user's text, edit warred with them and done what could be considered vandalism. I am asking you once and only once, do not do that again, else you will be blocked. You are not allowed to strike other users comments, period. You are not allowed to edit war with a user. You are not allowed to vandalize. You need to step away from the computer, have a nice cup of tea, and come back with fresh eyes. You are too attached to this situation (whether it is about you or not) and you are probably going to get blocked if this behavior continues. Chill. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Just for clarification, where I am not allowed to strike through? Why is the user allowed to change my text. I.e. the topic? I have created this post. Someone added something to my post and I removed and reverted it its to original form Mootros (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They aren't either, but they can combine the topic (done all the time). No matter what they have done, do not engage them and do not strike anything they have written on anyone, ever. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, you are referring to WP:ANI postings. If that's the case I will happily take your good advice. Mootros (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good, Sir. If you have any questions, please ask or find the nearest Admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I spoke with Kushsinghmd‎ as I spoke with you. Told him essentially the same thing. He is going to disengage for a week, giving things time to settle down. He will be working on other articles. I have told him that if anything happens in that one week time period that he can take it to WP:MEDCAB (since he wanted some sort of intervention, which I was reluctant to give as I wanted the situation stopped outright). As you have agreed, you will not engage him (which is great), so after that week, with no problems, he will drop the whole thing and never look back essentially. As I asked him (and I ask you) please abandon editing Talk:Research fellow and its sister page Research fellow. That seems to be the point of contention for you both. When not editing that page, no more problems should follow. Glad to have worked with you and again, if you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page or message here and I will message back as I have it on my watchlist. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)