User talk:IronDuke/Archive 1

October 2005-December 2006.

Welcome!

Hello, IronDuke/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Alan Au 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - You can try to reset your password at the login page. In the meantime, I'll try and have an admin reset it for you. When using hotmail addresses, remember to check your spam folder. --Alan Au 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi ID, you can use the link on my user page, or in the toolbox on the left of it, where it says "e-mail this user." Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Arabism

Why did you just remove the well-sourced anti-Arab incidents section? Please stop this aggressive POV editing. Yuber^(talk) 16:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Cockles

IronDuke, your intervention is a timely one! For some reason I was under the impression that "getting one's cockles up" was synonymous with "getting one's dander up", i.e. getting pissy and frustrated and angry. However, whereas "getting one's dander up" makes a bit of sense, I couldn't figure out how getting one's cockles up would make sense as a euphemism for getting angry. I was considering investigating when your note came. Well, this is not my first such error. I long used the expression "a bat's chance in hell", incorrectly conflating "a snowball's chance in hell" with "like a bat out of hell". To this day I still sometimes say the incorrect version. So this is an ongoing problem for me. However, I don't think I ever flaunted my ignorance so egregiously as on the Islamofascism AfD page where I believe I incorrectly used "cockles" a good five times in a single sentence. Well, live and learn. Thanks for educating me and sparing me further such episodes. As for my RfA, thanks for your kind words, even though I got pwned I enjoyed being the center of attention, primarily negative attention though it was. Mr. Kenneth Patrick Bogan was either a fugitive sex offendor from Compton, California who decided to reveal his identity on Wikipedia, or, more likely, someone pulling a bizarre and very convoluted prank. I had great fun watching it unfold, though. Regards! Babajobu 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism

Hi, IronDuke. My willingness to change my vote is not due to the desire to get Brandon to focus his attention elsewhere. "Islamofascism" is notable, and I believe now, as I believed before, that it is an entirely appropriate topic for Wikipedia. In the AfDs on Islamofascism people generally argued for or against its deletion. People who argued for a redirect invariably said something along the lines of "offensive! redirect!", or "delete this trash and redirect". I never had any truck with these argument/opinions. The term is notable, end of story. It is/was not acceptable, in my mind, to replace discussion of the term with a more general, PC discussion at neofascism and religion. However, this time something different has happened. Rather than simply trying to "disappear" the topic of Islamofascism, the redirecters have actually incorporated the entire discussion of Islamofascism into the neofascism and religion article as a subheading of the Islam section. That resolution works well enough for me. Many notable topics in Wikipedia are covered as sub-headings in more general articles. Before it seemed that the editors working on neofascism and religion would have nothing to do with the topic of the term Islamofascism, so a standalone article was necessary. Now Islamofascism is discussed in the same place as the more general discussion of fascist elements in Islamic movements, which I think works well. Hope this clarifies a bit! I don't want to be Brutus! ;-)

"Someone who wants to know what the word means should only have to type it into the serach box and hit enter for the word and its defintion to come up instantly. They should not have to root around other articles for it." Yes, this is true. This is really a problem with the mediawiki software, in that while one can create a link to a subheading of an article, redirects cannot go to subheadings. What needs to happen is that someone types in Islamofascism, and they are redirected to the Islamofascism subheading of neofascism and religion. The lack of this functionality is a problem all over Wikipedia, with numerous notable topics being included within other articles, but forcing readers to go on an easter egg hunt when they are directed to the main article. Hopefully the next upgrade of the software will put an end to this. But I do think this (hopefully temporary) disadvantage is outweighed by the advantage of having the full discussion of Islamofascism offered along with the general discussion of fascism in Islamist movements. As to why other editors have so zealously opposed having a standalone article for the term? Well, I think it's clear that the existence of the standalone article bothers them. I wasn't willing to bend to accommodate their pieties, but I'm not going to let those pieties annoy me into opposing what I think is a pretty reasonable handling of the topic, either. Have to log off for now, will be back on later. Cheers, Babajobu 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion, I've added my thoughts to the talk page in the 'Let's merge...' section. --Malthusian (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College page

IronDuke, if you don't quit the meta-discussion harrassment and either make a positive contribution to the content of the page or go away, I will seek to have you banned as a vandal. Your attacks on me haven't really gone anywhere, so I suggest you consider one of these two routes. -- Gnetwerker 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused as to the definition of a wikivandal: this may help: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." [[1]] If you are convinced that I am, in fact, a vandal, you are obliged to report me to the proper entities. I think you would get little traction on this, however; threats to have users making legitimate edits (even if NPOV or bad faith -- which mine aren't) "banned" are frowned on here. As to making a "positive contribution," I quote you from the talk page (snideness excised for clarity): "IronDuke has chosen... to... re-write [the article] ... This is fine, and may be an improvement (ultimately)." IronDuke 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to study the sections Disruption and Users who exhaust the Community's Patience in the Blocking Policy -- Gnetwerker 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you haven't exactly responded to any of my points above. That aside, I've actually been meaning to suggest to you that you accuse me of disruption rather than vandalism. It isn't true, of course, but at least you could say, in good faith, "In my, Gnetwerker's, opinion, IronDuke is being disruptive." That statement would not be as demonstrably false as your claims of vandalism, as it falls more into the realm of subjectivity. But let me say this, by way of an olive branch. It is my intention to keep editing the Reed page. I am going to profess myself amazed if you do not continue editing it as well (unless someone, somewhere, decides that officers of a corporation ought not to edit article about it). We can continue this method and manner of discussion, but I think you and I can agree that in the end, it will bear little fruit. So: let's, if we can, resolve to put any and all unpleasantness behind us, and work together on this article. I expect we will have disagreements, but I also expect we're both capable of remaining civil about them, and working together constructively to resolve them without personal attacks. Does all this seem logical/rational/good to you? IronDuke 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) You can stop posting to both of our Talk pages -- trust me, I read yours; 2) If I don't respond to some of your points, it is because I don't deem them worthy of response; 3) You have my word that I will continue to edit the Reed page (though I believe it not to require a great deal more editing, once the current war is resolved). -- Gnetwerker 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'm taking that as a "no" on my peace offering. I'm sorry you feel that way (if I am indeed reading you correctly). Perhaps when a little time has passed you'll change your mind. I'm glad you feel the Reed page is mostly there. I was a bit worried you were going to try to revert my NPOV edits. (And as for my talk pages, I post there as well here not so much for you as for other people, so they can more easily follow our discussion (though one would have to be a bit of a masochist to do that, I think), and also so there's a record of what I'm saying on your page as well as mine). IronDuke 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your personal battle with Gnetwerker on the Talk:Reed College page and thought I'd check the two of you out. I thought I'd volunteer my impression, as someone who knows neither of you at all before now. My impression is that you are in general a reasonable, responsible editor who has been drawn into an unnecessary combative situation with Gnetwerker. Regarding the specific wikilink to that author with marginal or questionable notability... I think you might be right but not by a whole lot. It's not an open and shut case. That tells me that you're motivated by more than a desire for quality in the article, that you're also motivated by the emotional opposition to Gnetwerker. Gnetwerker might be stalking you, but I think you're perpetuating the problem a little by insisting on the correctness of your views across the board. I think a wikipedia where the decisions were all yours might be a better wikipedia than one where the decisions were all Gnetwerker's, but a wikipedia that was a battleground between the two of you would be worse than either. So I would suggest a little compromise and just let the Reed College article exist with a link to an author of questionable notability. Maybe someone else will fix it down the road. Rlitwin 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Braille translation

What did you change? JTBurman 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see now. That wasn't the translation. We need to fold the translation into the main page. You're welcome to help with that, if you wish. JTBurman 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The translation is on the talk page, just above where you put your comment that I first responded to. (We are currently discussing, in the translation wikigroup, how to make this process easier; you're not the first to miss it.) JTBurman 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Hey Gnetwerker and IronDuke,

I got a talk page that you were going to an RfA.

I strongly suggest that you both do not do this and both ask that it not go through.

Instead, I suggest that you both unilaterally agree not to work on the Reed page. You both have a lot to contribute on wikipedia, and an RfA on this one issue would be a waste of time. Allow the article to stand at [2], the latest version, let the many other editors continue to improve it, and move on to work on some other part of wikipedia where you will not encounter each other.

A simple statement on the RfA page somewhere to the effect that "I won't edit if he won't edit" would resolve it.

(If you do go through with an RfA, I can predict the result: "Gnetwerker and IronDuke have ignored policies A, B and C. User 1 did it worse than User 2. Gnetwerker and IronDuke are enjoined from editing the Reed page for a period X." I've got five bucks on it.)

Good luck, Sdedeo (tips) 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker

A final decision has been made in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Goodness knows, Wikipedia certainly needs another teenaged voice on Islamofascism and Abortion. -- Gnetwerker 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I was going to make a report myself... drop me a link once you made yours. thanks. Netscott 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the link, I see he/she's been blocked. Thanks again! Netscott 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Being unhappy with my edits does not constiture evidence of sock-puppetry (or adminship either), ducky. -- Gomi-no-sensei 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

If you don't want a user page, might I suggest that you redirect it to your talk page, as many prominent Wikipedians have done? --Philosophus ^T 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hey there IronDuke, it's is good to here from you [3]. I'm confused, though. As seen in the page's history, I have never edited Gomi-no-sensei's talk page. I would appreciate clarification, as, to put it frankly, I do not know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you will probably not want to respond to this message after today. Cheerio! --MrFi s h^{Go Fish} 13:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! Caught me! Yes, I see that you were restoring old messages that were previously removed by someone else. Without investigating, it looked like someone putting up three messages at once, a common trolling technique. As far as I am concerned, you may put these back up as you see fit. Again, thank you for talking to me and I'm sorry for making what appears to be a tense situation worse. Have a good day! --MrFi s h^{Go Fish} 13:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my Talk page

You have made the following comments on my Talk page:

You seem not to grasp that you cannot simply delete talk (even on your own page) that you do not like, especially when it concerns potential violations of WP policy.

This is what you deleted:

Ah, you respond at last. Good of you to engage me. As you perhaps know, you may not remove this tag for seven days. IronDuke 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for properly formatting the notice. I'll confess, I found the instructions confusing. IronDuke 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk was deleted by User:MrFish, who has said that he did this because he thought "someone putting up three messages at once" is "a common trolling technique."

Who are you? IronDuke 23:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I ask again: who are you and what are you doing at my userpage? IronDuke 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::No, there'll be plenty of time to remove my comments after we sort out what you were doing at my user page. Explain, please. IronDuke 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, as is made clear here: [[4]], it is permissible to "delete comments after responding to them." Here is my response: it is not vandalism to edit my own user page. My actions were within Wikipedia guidelines. Now that I have replied, I have deleted your comments from my page. They are archived here (on your page) for posterity. With regard to your initial comments, it is none of your business who I am, and I was making your User page non-blank, as is indicated permissible here: "User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page ... to avoid red links pointing to them". Thank you. -- Gomi-no-sensei 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gomi-no-sensei

I have closed that discussion. I strongly recommend that you let the issue go - forget about it. Don't edit Gomi-no-sensei's talk page. Move on. If there is a problem with Gomi-no-sensei then someone else will deal with it - not you. Work on the encyclopedia - that's what we are all here for.--Commander Keane 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Syrthiss 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I came here to let you know that if you want your user page deleted again, let me know and I'll do it. Ral315 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not saying it's your fault. If it's Gomi's fault, then you should just avoid contact with him/her, and I'll watch to make sure that Gomi doesn't provoke you any more. Ral315 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I'll take a look, ID. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing color.

You can change your signature by changing your "nickname" in your preferences. To do this, select "raw signature", and, since I assume you want your signature to be red, use IronDuke (view the source of this page) (or figure how to do this correctly in a CSS based way). I hope this can help to defuse the situation here. Doing this and having your user page redirect to your talk page is advisable, since it is much more helpful than a link to a nonexistent page. Such nonexistent user pages are a considerable annoyance to many editors. --Philosophus ^T 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re sock, for those who are so bored they are actually reading my whole talk page

I'm just leaving a note for all concerned: contrary to what folks may be led to believe from some of the comments on my talk page, I was in fact being harassed by a sock. [[5]] The details surrounding the ownership of the sock will be, I think, murky to most people following this in a casual manner, and that's a-okay with me. I'm willing to let the matter drop, and I'm hoping the puppeteer (whom I'm very, very sure is reading this) will call it a day, secure and happy in the knowledge that yes, he caused me aggravation. I hope that's enough. Let me also say, and without pointing any fingers, that folks who immediately assumed I was the harasser rather than the harassee were actually doing the sock's work for him, forcing me onto the defensive and adding to my stress. Luckily, truth, justice, etc., won out (at least partly) and no permanent harm done. But, while I totally AGF on the part of all participating (real) editors and admins, I just wish people had been a little less quick on the trigger, and AGF for me as well.

And, while, I have your attention, let me just address one thing to the Master Puppeteer: I have to believe, based on your behavior, that our whole interaction must have been incredibly stressful for you. Let me take this opportunity to apologize if I contributed in any way to this -- it was never my intention to make you feel bad. However, let me also offer this plea to you: I know it's sometimes hard to do online, but try to imagine there's a real-life human being somewhere on the other end of what you're doing.

Thanks for reading. IronDuke 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My error mate, sorry.--Commander Keane 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue of the Danish Jews

Hey -- I was interested to see your contribution to Danish Jews. Very intriguing. If you're new to Wikipedia, please let me be the first to welcome you, and to ask you if you can provide a source for your facts. I'm not doubting it or disputing it, but it's just generally the policy around here. Click on my signature if you want to talk to me, or just leave a reply here. Cheers. IronDuke 06:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a member of the german Wikipedia. Although, my itention wasn't to throw a better light on my people. ;-) I'm half jewish myself. My account there is Jockl1979. The source is the german wikipedia. The article is written by a Dane, which I asked about the source. Meanwhile I found a page in english though, that implies knowledge of Werner Best and shows up there reasons. It's the website of the Danish-Jewish Museum in Copenhagen: http://www.jewmus.dk/mitzvah_1.asp

Collaboration of Nazi-germany and Denmark means mostly the Danes fighting voluntary in the Waffen-SS :and Wehrmacht. Motiviation was, like for the most, the combat against communist Russia.

If it turns out, that there is no proof for the knowledge of Werner Best and the Wehrmacht, I will not hesitate to delete the text. The last thing I want to do is to create more legends about WW II. :-)

I apologize, if my english sounds like that Denglisch. :-)

Greetings from germany Jörg1979 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great to meet you, Jörg. I've gone ahead and added that cite you provided and tidied the section a bit. Thanks for adding it. Oh, and I expect your English is just a wee bit better than my German, nicht wahr? [Insert "I am a jelly doughnut" joke here.] Choos, IronDuke 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I become a hamburger! Nice to meet you too. Or as the former president of Germany Heinrich Lübke to the Queen once said: "Equal goes it loos!", inspired by the german expression: "Gleich geht's los!" meaning, "Here we go!". Tschüss! :-) Jörg1979 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Har Homa; Otto-William, Duke of Burgundy; Jamal Sampson; The Whole Experience; Jafar Panahi; The Birth of Venus (Bouguereau); Emil Fackenheim; Cupidon (1875); Kibbutz Yavneh; William-Henry Gauvin; Otto-Henry, Duke of Burgundy; Koteka; Niki Karimi; The Nut Gatherers; Stalwart; The Knitting Girl; Shargh; Notre Dame College, Dhaka; Nikahang Kowsar

Cleanup: Wendy Campbell; Robert Malachy Burke; Status of women in Pakistan
Merge: Political antisemitism; The Vampire Chronicles; Kid Sampson
Add Sources: Road map for peace; Khan Yunis; Henry Clay Dean
Wikify: MacGillick, McGillick, Gillick (Irish Surnames); Pool checkers; Gotham Awards
Expand: William of Norwich; Pluralism; Seligman

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon

Many thanks for your help on this. I only started because I had a disambig on something I'd written with the legend "you can help." So I tried, cleared most of the disambiguation on this link. Maybe you know how to finish it off, I certainly don't. --Richhoncho 18:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. I'm sorry, though, I'm not quite sure what it is that you feel needs to be finished off, but I'm happy to help if I can. IronDuke 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those related links that shouldn't be there, about 150 when I started, left the ones I wasn't too sure about. --Richhoncho 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is OK

no offence. think of me as a lighting rod. Zeq 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<ref> tags

The article is using everywhere the <ref> tag system, which is way less intrusive, and I would suggest that you use them also for consistency of the article. If you need some explanation, please let me know. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The <ref> tags obscured stuff. It was already there. My fault not to use <nowiki> tags-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way to insert an external link is with single square brackets as [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke]'s, resulting in [6]. Double square brackets as [[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke]]'s will result in this [[7]], in which the second pair is still visible. The article uses in general the <ref> tag system, in which you can add a link as <ref>[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:IronDuke Iron Dukes user page]: tesing it all</ref>, which than shows up as ^[1]. Anyway, the last one gives smaller numbers, is less intrusive, and you can resue the first occurance of the tag by supplying a name to the first tag <ref name=Iron> Second example</ref>: ^[2] and the next time as <ref name=Iron/> with an extra slash as this ^[2]. You can click on the footnote, and it brings you directly to the link, which explains more than a naked link in the text itself.

The later has under the header refernces a special tag <references/> which will give this:

^ Iron Dukes user page: tesing it all
^ ^a ^b Second example

Hope this clarifies -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name is rachel corrie

You didn't need to recreate this page with a new title. You can simply move pages to new titles using the 'move' tab at the top of the edit window. (aeropagitica) (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, didn't quite work. And now I find there's already an article with that name but it didn't show up before. Weird. IronDuke 00:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried

I folowed your advice for few days (spelling and all) and at the end the violators of all possible policies are the one who are wiining by getting the article protected or revrted. Zeq 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spamming

Saw your comment on internal spamming, and I would agree with you. If you make the edit, I will support you and monitor the page with you. Please reply here. Morton devonshire 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for stopping by and for your support. I'd like to get a lot of input from all sides before I do anything drastic like make a guideline/policy edit. But I'm already pleased to have yours... IronDuke 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVIDENCELINK

If you have a problem with another editor vandalising Wikipedia, place a message on WP:AIV rather than creating an article. Thanks, (aeropagitica) (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I would like to leave an evidence page. I mean, you're supposed to right? I messed this up last time I tried it. Any guidance would be helpful. IronDuke 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Union of Public Employees

Hi ID. I gave the "Israel boycott" section at CUPE a bit of a work-over. I thought it might slow down the back-and-forth if there was more detail about the actual resolution. Have a look and let me know what you think. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bac. Thanks for coming to CUPE. I think your edits are great -- I supplied one side of the issue and you nicely laid out the other. I wish more controversial subjects worked this way. As for the back-and-forth, well, I'm fighting off a sock/stalker right now, so things are a bit tricky for me. But I very much appreciate your constructive edits. IronDuke 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hawash talk

I realize that the anon is the one that is harassing you, not vise versa, and am merely attempting to help him/her calm down. I have not and am not accusing you of any wrongdoing. - Jersyko·talk 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your efforts. However, I do not think, based on previous experience, that he will calm down, although I would love to be proven wrong. And again, although I really, really appreciate what you're doing, I must warn you this editor can be a bit of a tar baby. Other people have helped me and been harassed by him, and I would hate for you to be added to that list. IronDuke 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have succeeded in stifling debate on the Mike Hawash page, and amazingly got someone to protect even the Talk page (without any notices on the pages!), I can only respond here: What I do not understand is why you take any situation where someone disagrees and call it "harrassment" and "sock puppetry". Why don't you simply respond to the specific edits as is supposed to occur on Wikipedia, instead of simply removing anything you don't like and using wikilawyering to attack the "offender"? You have shown what appears to be a systematic bias (you may be unaware of it) by including opinion writers in contexts where they do not belong, by continually re-inserting the Daniel Pipes quote even after you admitted it is not in the NY Post and is not sourced elsewhere, and by inserting one-sided information with no attempt to include balance, and reverting referenced attempts to include that balance.

In another article you reverted the addition of a citation from the CBC itself, without discussion. What you call "wikistalking", I call providing balance to a systematic bias. And I choose to be anonymous because of exactly what has happened -- attacks as a result of my opinions. You obviously have a good relationship with admins who edit on the same articles (and perhaps with a similar bias), as evidenced by the instant granting of your protection requests. But in answer to your other charges -- I am no one's "sock puppet" -- this is your paranoid fantasy. When the semi-protection is removed, I will return to attempt to insert balanced information in various articles. -- 88.149.150.163 10:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's a bit of a tall order, I'd like to reply to you in a way that you can accept and makes sense to you. First off, let me say that I am entirely within my rights to revert sock and meatpuppets without comment. If legitimate editors actually agree with the puppets' editing, they are free to engage me in conversation, and I will take it seriously (as I have already shown). But I think I've been more than fair on that score: a self-confessed meatpuppet (who had already been tagged as someone who harassed me) just came to the article and made a number of changes. I could simply have bulk-reverted rather than getting bogged down in what parts of his edits were and were not legit, but why do that, I ask myself? In fact, some of the edits were fine, as I said, and I left them. I think I'm really stretching AGF to the limit by engaging with this editor, and by replying to you rather than simply removing your post without comment. As to you specific points:

I'm not "stifling" debate. I'm trying to prevent your sockpuppets from inundating the article, giving a false sense of what the community thinks. Despite the somewhat hateful way in which you did it, I tip my cap to you for attracting jersyko. One thing I think we can both agree on is that he is a smart, decent fellow. I encourage him to "debate" me in any way he sees fit, because I know that he is acting in good faith. However, when you speak of stifling debate, you might look at your own actions: a lot of editors shy away from pages where harassment and sockpuppetry are going on because they do not want to become targets of this. I hope Jersyko wants to continue to be part of editing the page, but I hope you can see how your efforts might discourage him.

"What you call "wikistalking", I call providing balance to a systematic bias."

What you are doing is wikistalking, that is, following me around and inserting edits that are meant to annoy me. is it possible that you could mount a reasonable defense of these pesky edits? Sure. If you weren't a wikistalking sock. Surely you can see how you lose all credibility when you do that. My edits on the Mike Hawash page annoy you, so you seek to annoy me in retaliation. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. And it's not just me and Jay in some little cabal we've hatched together against you. (NB: I would get off that line as soon as you are able. You are not helping your case at all, I think.) Other admins can barely suppress their mirth as you rail about lack of "proof" of your sock-stalking when it's utterly self-evident.

And as to your clearly incorrect contention that you are not a sock, again, assuming good faith, I think you aren't quite aware of what a sockpuppet is. When I call "you" a sockpuppet, I'm not saying that the individual who sat in front of a computer and typed your words above is a sockpuppet. I'm saying 88.149.150.163 is a sock, one of many, all from similar IP ranges, all following me around to other articles, harassing me, continually reposting farcical boilerplate warnings on my talk page, etc. "You" control these puppets, so when I call you a sockpuppet, I mean 88.149.150.163, the anon IP which is your sockpuppet. I suppose I could call you a sockpuppeteer instead, but that would be more appropriate when referring to your real account, which I think you are smart enough not to bring here.

As for the Pipes quote, will, first off, it's a different quote. The one you kept taking out (and which I acquiesced to by the way, speaking of AGF) neatly summed up all the other quotes. I still think it's largely superior to the hodgepodge of quotes we have, but I can go either way. The Pipes article has been cited in a number of different places, as I showed you, but even if it hadn't, Pipes is an expert in his field. But I'm not married to it. If a number of other legit editors feel strongly about it, I'm happy to hash it over. IronDuke 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To you, everyone who you don't like is a puppet of some sort. It is absurd to use that term - I get a new IP everytime I login -- there is no way for me to control this. Wikipedia does not require that I use an account or log on, so it is ridiculous of you to call me a puppet. Perhaps you are the puppet. -- 88.149.149.19 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think anyone can say I haven't at least tried to reach out to you on this. But you seem to have disliked me, instantly and irrevocably, from our very first interaction. These things happen, I guess. I hope (for your own sake, if not for mine) you can move on at some point in the not too distant future. IronDuke 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mike Hawash]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

He's a sock

Hey, Bac, thanks for your good edits and thoughtful conversation. The person you are having a dialogue with now, however, is a sock puppet which is stalking me on multiple articles. Whether you want to keep talking to it is up to you, of course, but I can tell you from long experience, you won't get very far. Cheers. IronDuke 15:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this comment here from the CUPE page, ID. I appreciate that there is considerable conflict between you and anon/User:BlindVenetian, but this comment puts me in a difficult position. I'm interested in the CUPE article, and I'm interested in not getting involved in this conflict. :) Further comment on my part could easily be misconstrued as picking sides, and I would not wish to do that. Cheers - and thanks for the encouragement. --Bookandcoffee 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Relief Foundation

I saw you created Global Relief Foundation. I changed the way it references your source. Is the Foundation's ties to terrorism really established, in a court of law, for instance?

The Treasury Department answers to the Attorney General I believe. And the Attorney General in 2002 was John Ashcroft. Ashcroft was not an honest official. He distorted various other terror cases. He claimed, for instance, that his Department helped thwart a plot to blow up Federal buildings in Ottawa. That plot turned out to be a complete fabrication on the part of intelligence officials.

The idea of "six degrees of separation" should be required reading for all US counter-terrorism intelligence officials. -- Geo Swan 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten tomatoes

is this the same IronDuke on RT? plange 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I do like the site, though. IronDuke 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Next of Kin"

Hi there, you said on the Gill Langley AfD that "maybe a foreword by Jane Goodall would constitute a peer review, perhaps the best review on the face of the planet". It's not like that, unfortunately. The business of the BUAV (same as the Wellcome Trust) is opinion-making, so Jane Goodall's name in the foreword is better described as a celebrity endorsement. Cynical? Sure. A friend of mine was active in a local wetland conservation charity, and he would complain endlessly how Greenpeace attracted donations with causes like whales, seals and chlorine, while the logal amphibians were under greater threat and in greater need of money. Dr Zak 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farrakhan

The OR that you removed from the Farrakhan page is back in, and the same user is taking out the justified "anti-Semitic people tag.--Mantanmoreland 21:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and now it has a link to the talk page, within the article, from a user who is quite emphatic on retaining it.--Mantanmoreland 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical PETA should recognize that Animals Have The Right to be TASTY

ALF is also radical. Look man -- look up radical. Are you saying that because ALF is so darned radical that PETA is not? That's just silly. Do you not like that PETA is viewed as radical. Does it bother you in some way to see it as radical? Do you disagrree that it is radical? What is you major malfunction here anyway? The group is radical by definition. DocEss 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what you meant about nytimes

did you meant Nytimes reportes more realbley than BNA.?Yousaf465

Yes. IronDuke 19:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well

According to Poisoning the well, "Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience"

What you reverted in Animal rights, therefore, is not "poisoning the well" as there is no pre-emptive presentation of adverse information. Please don't throw out phrases when you are not familiar with the concepts they are expressing. Farnsworth J 16:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming, against evidence, that you have in fact read the poisoning the well section, since you've linked to it. As you reread it, you may want to pay special attention to the segment below.

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

IronDuke 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading and cherry picking, I suggest you read the example that follows the passage you quote above as well as the rest of the article which makes it clear the information presented must be pre-emptive, an element missing from the Animal rights article. In any case the passage you reverted does not follow the formula you quote above. Poisoning the well does not mean you cannot refer to a position being supported by a Nazi, it just means you can't introduce that pre-emptively. If the David Duke info was in the introduction of the article or even in the introduction of the section then you'd have a point but given that it was in the middle of the article and at the end of a section it is not and could not be poisioning the well. Farnsworth J 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cquotes

If you mean the big blue things, I don't like them, but I know that others do, and I'm not aware of any policy against using them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the anon ip was me

But thanks for the warning! I try to follow rules. --Blue Tie 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Oops! Yes it was me, but I don't think it violates 3rr because one of the edits was me, "reverting" myself I think. --Blue Tie 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Two of those were not Reverts. They were just edits. I do not think there is a violation. If you think that there is, I have no problem with you reporting it. If I violated the rule, I need to know it. But right now, I do not think I did. --Blue Tie 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from anon IP

I have deleted the picture showing Hazrat Bilal r.a. as it is against our religion i.e. Islam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.5.143.194 (talk)

Thanks so much for responding. While I sympathize with your unhappiness with the picture, Wikipedia is not censored. That is, we don't leave images out just because they may be offensive. See WP:NOT. Also, you might want to consider getting an account here -- people are almost always taken more seriouslywhen the do. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ .

But speaking only as someone who's curious, why is it against your religion? IronDuke 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

61.5.143.194 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Taking/Drawing pictures of People or Animals (anything which can move) is prohibited in Islam. Some people differ in opinion and says that only Drawing is prohibited ( Almost 99% muslims agree with it). But they all agree that "sketches /pictures showing either any Prophet specially Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. or his companion is against Islam". The reaction on creature printed in europan media was not due to that they showed him as terrorist but against that they showed him, becuase showing him was the real issue and other things matter second.61.5.143.194 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for leting me know. While I understand your frustration, Wikipedia is not censored. That is, we don't leave images or text out of article, even though they are sometimes hurtful to a lot of people. You could try to change this policy, but it would be an uphill struggle, I think. Do you have any questions/concerns/complaints about this or another matter I could help you with? IronDuke 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure

A pleasure. Just the wikignome in me -- Avi 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

making spellng mastikes

Eye no whot ewe meen. ;) -- Avi 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes at the expense of other editors are personal attacks. Arniep 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they are good natured. Regardless, I humbly crave your pardon, Iron, if I have in any way insulted you. The smiley should have been a giveaway, but I believe Arnie is perturbed with me, and would like to make my life difficult, so let it be. If it gives him a small sense of satisfaction, so be it

. In the future, do I have your express permission to attempt to inject some good-natured humor? -- Avi 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the joke was not at my expense. It was a reaction to the subject line of this edit I made: [8]. Secondly, as per my last point in my talk page welcome above, personal attacks are allowed on my talk page, at my discretion, as long as they are funny. I'm quite serious about this. Third, I enjoyed seeing it, and wish to keep it on my talk page which brings me to: fourth, I would caution you, Arniep, that your actions could be seen as baiting Avi. I see that you two are having a disagreement. Lowering the temperature, rather than looking for ways to raise it, will help you both. IronDuke 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mucking alert on William Tecumseh Sherman

Be aware. BusterD 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edits. What concerns you? IronDuke 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking a favor without introduction. I noticed that you were a recent editor to either the Sherman or ACW main page. I thought I'd made my concerns clear on edit summary and talk (if not I likely did an equally poor job of communicating my intention to the editor with which I was reverting work). I saw a large set of changes of an unfinished quality to a Featured Article; I had been forced to use my 3 max reverts to defend the space. I was searching for allies, if any were out there. Thanks for observing. BusterD 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not personal comments

it is not personal comment, but the dispute explained by involved parties. --Aminz 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality = NPOV = no POV = all POVs = POV of you + POV of Itaqallah --Aminz 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't supposed to be neutral. As a party involved in the dispute, you may also want to post something on the RfC page.--Aminz 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your interpretations of the policies. If you feel I am poisining the well, feel free to report me to an admin. --Aminz 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

independent of what we think, i wanted to thank you for your respectful comments. --Aminz 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

... but neutral elaboration of specific debate contents does not constitute as a violation of point 4, in fact it helps people new to the dispute. no position of either disputing party is being forwarded. ITAQALLAH 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry that you feel my reflection of the talk page discussion is not neutral. could you please explain exactly where, so i can make the necessary changes? i think it is important to conduct an RfC, even if responses may not be voluminous, when i feel that you are not willing to respect the fact that there is a legitimate dispute- where it would be much better in the interests of dispute resolution to discuss on the talk page without continually adding further objectionable material. ITAQALLAH 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, just noticed I’m wrong. Improper debate on that page has already occurred – with you and Itaqallah being the culprits." - i don't believe i have been involved in any sort of debate on that page. ITAQALLAH 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed

IronDuke, I am amazed regarding your views. On one hand, your usage of a particular class of sources which are by no means encyclopedic (See [9] ) given that there are far many (easy to find!) much less disputed academic sources, speaks to me. On the other hand, aside from that, you do not seem to be trying to impose your point of view to the article. --Aminz 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons and Dragons

Is there a discussion of it somewhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D&D itself is eminently notable. Is there a particular cruft-like example you can point to? -- Avi 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this and this. IronDuke 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that trying to get the entire Monster Manual III into wiki would be cruft like. I thought you meant the phenomenon itself, sorry. -- Avi 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Cruft-like, and slow-motion copyvio as well, perhaps. BTW, thanks for reverting PA. IronDuke 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I've given up on trying to get the cruft out of Wikipedia; that way lies madness... Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of afraid that was the general feeling. It sort of ties in to this feeling I have that people aren't contributing in areas like RfC and AfD, etc., where arrantly silly things can be slapped down, thus they perdure. I have a sort of solution for it, but I'm afraid no one will like it. Echoing sigh... IronDuke 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too board

You suggested "...that his use of that account be restricted to pages he has not edited before..." Since HotR has sometime like 15K of edits it is too broad to restrict him from any page he has edited before since one usually edits in one's area of expertise. Though a more specific ban regarding at least the central controversial pages Allegations of Israeli apartheid and New anti-Semitism would be fair as well as any other pages that were key to the problems that I am unaware of. The other suggestions of yours are logical in my opinion but I am unsure what to do if he is editing an article and then an editor he has had problems with comes and starts to edit that article? Also, the ban should be reviewed after a period of time, like a year, where restrictions can be lightened somewhat if all is well, and if that works in another year they can be lightened further -- something progressive. --Deodar 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. On a minor note, probably it's best to keep this kind of discussion centralized. Happy to hear from you, but better on the relevant discussion thread. As to your points, I don't think we need to bend over backwards to accommodate a disruptive editor, really I don't. Everyone's time is too valuable. But given that we are, I'd hope Homey would be grateful to be given a second chance (perhaps more like 10th chance). As long as we're on the discussion, I would urge you to reconsider recapitulating the argument that there is something nefarious about the POV of the editors who want to see something done about Homey. It is only natural that Homey would target people he opposes, and that those people would protest. He's not targeted you with a sock, has he? See what I'm saying? IronDuke 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory AfD

Found 8 reviews of her work and added to the article. Regards. Edison 04:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanks. IronDuke 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Baruma

I reviewed his info and have some comments, can you take a look at the discussion: "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Thanks.Kiyosaki 09:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know

... and for being great. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dare you to block me, I don't really care

It would be an honor to be blocked for attempting to put in factual evidence and have an admin block me simply because he wants to lie on a certain topic. Your threats don't bother me, go ahead block me. You started the personal attacks by calling me a "sock", so why don't you block yourself? Haramzadi 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were a sock, only that it was likely. And you still haven't answered my question: are you editing/have you edited with other accounts, and if so, what were they? IronDuke 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You implied I was a sock. And I didn't see your question; No, I haven't edited with other accounts, why? What is the nature of this question?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haramzadi (talk • contribs) .

The nature of this question is that you're tossing around terms Wikipedians generally only learn after being here a while, and injecting yourself immediately into a controversial debate, a hallmark of sockpuppets. If you really are new, then I invite you to familiarize yourself with our policies. I'm going to WP:Assume good faith and leave a welcome message on your talk page. IronDuke 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete comments from your talk page??

Like this?? If you could explain the original question I would appreciate it. thanks. --68.9.116.87 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you have a talk page? It's here. You might want to read it. IronDuke 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man do I feel like an idiot, i didn't even know that existed, thanks, i am new as you can tell.--68.9.116.87 04:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. No need to feel like an idiot, we were all new once. When you see the message below as you click through articles, you'll know you have new messages, and can just click on the banner to go to your talk page. Also, as your talk page has been pointed out to you, you might want to think about replying to people who contact you on it.

You have new messages (last change).

IronDuke 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kriss Donald

I note your previous contributions to the above page. Discussions are ongoing regarding the relevance of some of the page's contents, and appear to have reached a stalemate: I would appreciate your input. Please see the talk page Best, FrFintonStack 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon

There's yet another AfD on this article. Thought you might be interested. —Hanuman Das 14:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

IronDuke/Archive 1

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion^talk 16:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Iron Dukes user page: tesing it all

[Iron-2] Second example

[1]

[2]