User talk:Freestylefrappe

Agaricus Blazei Murill Mushroom

Just a quick note to let you know that I edited your Agaricus Blazei Murill Mushroom page and added a note to the "Discussion" page explaining the one deletion I made. Steve Casburn 23:57, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Constitutions

Hi, I noticed the note you added to the edit history of Constitution of Argentina about putting it in wikibooks if that's where you wanted it to go. The problem is that these articles are unencyclopedic and do not belong in wikipedia: neither do they belong in wikibooks: the proper place for them is wikisource. I can transwiki them or you can do it, but they will be transwikied eventually. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These constitutional documents that you are ading are unencyclopedic, and ARE being transwikied to wikisource. Can you please STOP adding them here and go to wikisource and add them there. If you persist in uploading unencyclopedic content to wikipedia it will be viewed as vandalism and may see you being blocked from editing here. PLEASE STOP. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikimoney

Maybe you figured it out already, but there's a robbery and followup going on at Wikipedia:WikiMoney accounts; you'd have to look at the history and follow the link at the top of the page for requests for (funny) comments to see what's up. People did seem to have been using the account and it's possible that the W$ will be returned at some point, but I think most of us are just watching to see what ensues, for our pathetic entertainment. Elf | Talk 01:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That just sounds really depressing...how is that even possible?? I guess I'll look at the talk page. Freestylefrappe 01:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you've add links to The Free Dictionary to some articles. That site is actually a Wikipedia mirror; it just copies our content and usually has outdated versions of it anyway. Also, Infoplease and encyclopedia.com have the same content, so there's no need to link both as in Agostinho Neto. Everyking 06:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

External links

I will reply in more detail later, but a couple of quick notes:

1. Please use the local spellings unless there are English variants.
2. Do not link to www.nationmaster.com, sciencedaily.com or encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com when they're just outdated copies of Wikipedia.

Dori | Talk 03:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Color revolutions

I think you all are crazy to make the distinction that you do! I won't object because I'd rather start a Non-violent revolutions article that covers such things properly than have a stupid edit war about what fits and what doesn't using mostly invisible (and arguably POV) guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Akramiya

Well, actually I didn't add anything to the page, the only thing I did was changing the appearance of already existed link, as it looked like this: [1] --Dennis Valeev 23:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Song

An amusing song by Elf I came across recently...

(And you can see the original at any time at m:Web Encyclopedia Song. Elf | Talk 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC))

This is the very model of a Web encyclopedia,
It's got a zillion topics by the grace of Wikimedia,
It lists the kings of England, and it notes the fights historical,
From Marathon to Karbala, in order categorical;
It's thoroughly inclusive, too, of topics mathematical,
It talks about equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem it's teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

(A chorus of editorial voices chimes in--)
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse;
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse;
With many cheerful facts about the square of the
hypote- potenuse.

It talks about both integral and differential calculus;
It states the scientific names of beings animalculous;
In short, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia.

In short, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia.

It covers mythic histories, King Arthur's and Wild Bill Hickok's;
It helps you with acrostics and it chats about the paradox,
It covers elegiacs and the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics it can floor peculiarities parabolous;
It describes such art as Raphael's and Gustav Klimt's and Zoffany's,
It notes the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes,
It speaks in lovely prose about the Legio Germanica,
(And does it so much better than that upstart called Britannica.)

And does it so much better than (etc.)

We edit all the pages in a mode collaborational;
The quantity of knowledge here is often inspirational!
In short, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia.

In short, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia.

We sometimes have some trouble with rude vandals who'll confuseya
(Although they're much less cruel than the ones from Vandalusia)
When such reverts and edit wars cause stress for Wikipedians,
Administrators try to make it better with expedience
So editors can concentrate on cleaning featured articles
And clarifying facts about rare subatomic particles
Because providing information free on public media's
The overriding purpose of a web encyclopedia.

The overriding purpose of a (etc.)

Yes, all our gathered knowledge, though we're plucky and adventury,
Has only been collected since beginning of the century;
But still, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia.

But still, its zillion pages by the grace of Wikimedia
Make it the very model of a web encyclopedia!

NP :)

My pleasure :)

--Striver 30 June 2005 02:22 (UTC)

lol, may i snatch your song?

--Striver 30 June 2005 02:24 (UTC)

thx :D

--Striver 30 June 2005 02:27 (UTC) Salam!

Is there a standard to follow?

--Striver 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention :)

However, im a bit bussy in the marriage sections, and unless it us urgent, i will take a look when im done ther.

Best regards!

--Striver 02:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, man, is Abu Huraira there? Need to take care of that...

--Striver 02:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize

Please excuse your behavior. But, why did you copy 66.36.148.190 saying the word "source?". He's just vandalizing the page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

WP:CP#July 9

I've responded to the claims of copyvio in Fatima bint Asad, and, as you seemed to be involved with this page, I thought you ought to know. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for your explanation!(Random bystanders, see [my talk page]) Now I understand what you meant on in the edit summary when you talked about looking all the way through the page. The reason I relisted it was that a copyright notice (at least in Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works signatories) is not required for something to be under copyright, and inelibble for inclusion into Wikipedia. Here are some pages to review in regards to this: Copyright#Copyright_notices, Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations, Public_domain#Expiration. After reading those pages, let me know if you still think the copied text is allowable, or if you have any other questions. Thanks for responding so quickly! (Also copied on my talk page) JesseW 00:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made a sorted, uniqed list of User:Striver's contributions, at User:JesseW/status(which I use as a sort of sandbox) - I would delight in any help looking through it. I've also told him about the things you suggested. JesseW 02:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver has added a large body of material to Fatima bint Asad again - copyvio check, please? Could you do some google checks to see if the material Striver has copied into Fatima bint Asad is legal for us to use? I did some checks, but the results were inconclusive. Hope you can help. Thanks for all your work. JesseW 23:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vfd on Islamic Term

Actually the vote was 4 for delete, 1 for keep and we also 3 people who mention redirects, but only 2 actually mention redirect in the vote. That is not a vote for a delete and redirect. If you want to make it a redirect, that's your perogative, but I am not changing the vote. You can't assume that the deletes want it redirected. In fact, one of the deletes said that it should NOT be redirected. --Woohookitty 02:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The vote was NOT for redirect, but you know what? It doesn't matter. :) You can make it a redirect if you'd like. I don't think anyone is going to challenge you on it, including me. But it wasn't the result of the vote. --Woohookitty 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, since I involved myself, let me explain myself more fully. The redirect is really immaterial, you can go ahead and do it yourself if you think it's worth the effort. All I'm saying, like Woohoo, is that the VfD consensus didn't lie in a redirect, but only delete. This isn't to say that anyone would have disagreed with it, but just that it wasn't the job of the closing admin. That's what irked me, that you would demand the closing admin do such a thing for you, when it was clearly an editorial decision (that you or anyone could have made), not an administerial one. There, enough time wasted on this. --Dmcdevit•t 04:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Qiyamah

Personal attacks

I never said I didn't see Universaliss's comments as personal attacks. Yes, I saw the personal attacks (and I also consider calling another's POV "vandalism" a personal attack). That is why I made the warning on his talk page. I assure you, now that I made the warning (which goes both ways I might add) I fully expect the personal attacks to stop. As I can't monitor the situation 24 hours a day, I invite you to report any further attcks to me personally and I will enforce our policy with a block if necessary. Other than that, how is the actual content dispute going? Is progress being made? What's your take on my suggestions? --Dmcdevit•t 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. I've made a warning, now if there's another personal attack I will block. I don't mean to sound hesitant. Now, maybe we got off on the wrong footing (above), but I'm trying to help as best I can with no prior knowledge of either the conflict or the topic. If you think I'm doing something wrong, just tell me. But please don't talk down to me again. Anyway, good luck with this and call me if you need me, I'm really just trying to do what I can. --Dmcdevit•t 21:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

wow

man, that was weired, i have never seen the likes of that...

My pleasure to help... i feel a bit deatached to that article, i dont realy see the point of knowing "the step for step program of the resurection day", but that is my personal pov. Feel free to ask for help anytime. And please feel free to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conspiracy:_The_World_Conspiracy_Guild --Striver 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Qiyamah

Freestylefrappe, I haven't been doing all that much on Wikipedia today -- doctor visit, my arthritis is bad, I'm taking pain pills that make me kinda woozy. I haven't intervened in Qiyamah because I am tired and over-extended, because I haven't done the research that I'd need to do to feel justified in intervening, and because I don't know Arabic. I can't TELL whose translation of that sura makes sense. Yes, I think Universaliss is behaving badly, and it's very strange that the admin would block you rather than Universalis. But it's only for 24 hours ... I'm sorry I can't give more support. Zora 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed what has been going on over at Qiyamah with all the vandalism and then this situation with Dmcdevil. This is ridiculous that you were blocked for 24 hrs. IMHO, this was totally inappropriate and perhaps you should leave a note on the WP admin noticeboard. It may not do much good at this point (once the block has expired), but it certainly can't hurt. The article was clearly and flagrantly being vandalized and judging by the history, other editors have been involved in reverting that vandalism. When I deal with blatant vandals such as this, I don't even bother with discussion since its pointless and they will typically do their best to get you in trouble somehow, as has happened here. SouthernComfort 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Shantung Incident

Can you please specify in Talk:Shantung Incident what needs to be cleaned up? I removed the tag because the reason I once saw for having it there is gone. Rl 19:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Islam

You might be interested in this [1].Heraclius 21:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there - you wondered if I was an Arab Christian and if I might be able to help out with the article List of Christian terms in Arabic. Actually, I'm a European without religion but I'm happy to help out on the article (I'll help with Arab Christians too). I work in Jordan where about 5% of the population are Arab Christians so I might be able to assist with some material and pictures too. Nick Fraser 11:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Avraam Benaroya

Convo1: I Sterbinsky

I do not have time to investigate your claims now, and I cannot say whether I will get time before I return to the UK on Monday evening. I suggest you report it at WP:VIP, WP:AIV or WP:AN/I where other administrators will see it, not just me. Thryduulf 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Freestyle, I've blocked him very briefly and left a note on his talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Convo2: Benaroya

Kekszakallu is posting from an Aristotle University of Thessaloniki IP address; the Hadjiiosif book he mentioned is first and second year required material. I guess the Usenet September has now become Wikipedia's September... Regards, Sysin

Disambiguation needed

Since you reverted my disambiguation of Arabic to Arabic language on the article Translation of the Qur'an with the comment "incorrect disambiguation," please supply the correct disambiguation. At this time Arabic goes to to the disambiguation page Arab (disambiguation). The link needs a correct reference. — DanMS 21:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see my response on my talk page User talk:DanMS. — DanMS 23:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Jews

Actually, Geraldo is. Not Lenin though.

Re: Your comment

I've replied to you on my talk page. —Chowbok 14:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Religious

If you are the person challenging the neutrality of "religious", would you kindly remove that challenge? Here is part of my explanation, which is on the discussion page for that article:

Whoever is disputing the neutrality of this article, please explain yourself here. The definition offered is the same as that of any respectable dictionary. My credentials are that I covered the Catholic Church clergy abuse scandal intensely for two years for the Boston Herald, and I continue to write about it on occasion for Knight Ridder newspapers. During this time I have I delved deeply into Canon Law and Catholic liturgy, discussing the same with pre-eminent Catholic theologians. One may also note that I am Jewish (as well as African American) and during the heat of the coverage, attended Mass practically weekly, paying particular attention to ritual and the homilies of Bernard Cardinal Law and others. I'm not being defensive, but who could possibly be more neutral than a Black Jew writing about an arcane aspect of the Catholic Church with which I have become quite familiar? I certainly have no agenda regarding this.

The reason I felt the need for the entry is that I found Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be confused about the meaning of the word "clergy," many assuming it includes nuns as well as priests. Likewise, Catholic bishops and other church leaders regularly will use the word "religious" in their explanation of policies, even though it's unlikely the general population knows what they are talking about. The same is true with the phrase "particular law," which, after its use by bishops at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in Washington in 2002, was misinterpreted by scores of journalists in attendance as being the absolute law of the church, which it is not. That definition is too arcane, I believe, to merit a Wikipedia entry, but not so religious.

I stand by the definition and welcome any explanation of its lack of neutrality. Until then, I cannot possibly see what that could be.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious"

That's what I posted in the discussion. I would further add that I see your challenge states, I think, that you are taking exception with my mentioning only a Catholic definition of religious. I can understand that but Wikipedia, this part anyway, is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the more common definition should be obvious to anyone. The whole point is that this Catholic definition is far different than the one that is in common use, and therefore merits inclusion.

—robinbirk

Re: Tawbah

Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I think this phrase from List of Islamic terms in Arabic sums up exactly what I meant: "...which are expressed as words in the Arabic language"... Just as a word does not a phrase make, neither does an Islamic term make an Islamic phrase. Tomer ^TALK 00:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. You'll notice I added a link to the List at Tawbah#See also.  :-) Cheers. Tomer ^TALK 04:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Confused

On User talk:Dino you note:

== Scarface references in south park ==

Could you close the vfd debate and delete this? The time for the vfd still has

three days but every user, about ten, have voted to delete. Thanks.

freestylefrappe 04:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure. I have never to my knowledge had anything to do with a south park page, despite living in Colorado. Scarface? Are you confusing me with someone else?

dino 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Omri Sharon NPOV

Would be nice to include a brief explanation on the talk page why you added the NPOV tag to the Omri Sharon article? Thanks. -- 169.237.30.225 13:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina

First there was a suggestion of merging International response which all users (that commented) was opposed to. Then you put up the 'speedy delete' template and made a comment in the disaster relief article that the merging of the articles were complete, which was far from the truth. I thought you were trying to get rid of the article against consencus/established guidelines. Seeing that it was a misunderstanding I sincerely apologize for jumping to conclusions and putting the delete template on your page. --Tsaddik Dervish 03:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Zap

See my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Assam

Couldn't verify the info. Check out this edit done to the Bengali article way back in 2003. --{{IncMan|talk}} 03:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Changed the language to make it look less POV. --{{IncMan|talk}} 04:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism and POV on Assam. Appreciate this. Since I contribute to it very often, I hate to get into a revert war, but would still like to see the page NPOVized and clean. Chaipau 20:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Paine

I quote from the present text of Thomas Paine;

His books inspired Radicalism in the United Kingdom. (disputed — see talk page)

Is this someone else's injudicious assertion added between text and tag? Whether or no, the {tl|dubious}} tag is wrong where it now is.

I agree that an account of Paine's quarrel with Washington is the major omission from the present article; and I am bold enough to fix it. Septentrionalis 14:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Republic of Macedonia

You made a request at WP:RM that Culture of Republic of Macedonia be moved to Culture of Macedonia. However, Talk:Culture of Republic of Macedonia presently links to Talk:Republic of Macedonia and Culture of Republic of Macedonia mysteriously links to Macedonian Slavs. Is there still an issue in play for WP:RM to address? If so, could you clarify what pages it involves and for what reasons? Dragons flight 06:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Islamic symbolism

Hi, I will respond in detail later. Islamic symbolism does not need to be put up for vfd. However, a better term is "Islamic symbols." Detail on that to follow... I am severely multi-taked. Just wanted to drop a line to let you know I haven't forgotten. :) Take care. TheProphetess 18:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Short reason, if you look up -ism, it refers to a pre-packaged ideology, or an organized system or concept. Whereas Muslims have ascribed several symbols to Islamic events - Islam has not prescribed a system of icons. That is why the term "symbols" is much better - and there is a diff between Muslim and Islamic symbols. You are right that technically Islam and Muslim are the same. However, 1/ Muslims comes in all nationalities and cultures. Islam accomodates that diversity by letting each people do their thing. According to Islam, everything is permitted until there is a limit ("hadd"). Equating Muslims' adopted symbols with Islamic symbols leads to the slight problem of the assumption of the universality of these symbols. 2/ Some Muslims adapt clearly un-Islamic symbols and practices that don't necessarily exclude these persons from Islam.

Thank you for lending me your ear. I hope we can work together to improve this article. Regards. TheProphetess 12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

User pages are not Article Pages

Please check this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_eschatology

User pages are not supposed to be listed with article pages. If you want to point out a contribution you made, mention it in your USER page. Don't list your USER page in a category for ARTICLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.232.69 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

He had just forgotten a leading ":" when listing a category among articles he had started. An easy mistake to make. But thanks for noticing, it didn't look good being listed on that category page, and I have fixed it for him. Shanes 07:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA Thanks Yous

Convo1: Thorpe RFA nomination

I wrote that message because I saw some clear vandalism from a known user, Thorpe. I dug just a little to find a number of pages had been vanadalised in a very short window of time, so I sent the message. I presumed it wasn't the real Thorpe (I wondered if Thorpe remained logged on while some other person did some mischievous edits), as Thorpe's history indicated reliable contributions. But there's no way for me to know, and I haven't investigated since. Cheers, Daniel Collins 15:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

Convo2: re:nomination

No, if i thought i had a chance to be fairly looked at on the basis of my contributions to this site rather than my opinions of the, lack of standards for adminship, lack of accountability with the admins, my decision not to submit to arbitarity policies made on the fly, and how the current administration of the site seems to be more concerned with the idea of protecting their own backs then the protection of accuracy and neutrality of information provided and a policy of basic appeasement towards vandalism and people that are here to promote an agenda either from the right or the left in which many admins would rather ignore if it does not effect them or interject them selves in on one side or the other, among other things. I find the RFA not a election, for that is what it is, based on the qualifications of a user but no more then a popularity contest. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Convo3: Thank you for your opinion on my RfA

Hello, just a quick note to say thank you for voting, even though you were not convinced of my experience. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Perhaps I am ready for it, or perhaps, as you say, I am not. I hope that in the coming weeks and months I can prove you wrong, but no matter what I thank you for giving your honest opinion, it is really important to me. Thank you. :) Garrett^Talk 11:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Convo4: Thanks for voting on my RfA

Hi, Thanks for voting on my RfA. Having been elected, I hope to justify your faith in me. Thanks again. --Ragib 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo5: Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 08:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo6: BaronLarf's RFA

Thanks for you support on my recent RFA. Please let me know if I can help with any particular administrative responsibilities, or if you have any problems with the way I use the admin tools. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Convo7: Func's RfA

I wonder if this vote actually matters at this point... All votes matter! Indeed, I strongly encourge you to go back now and vote again! :)

Thank you for supporting my adminship, it was very much appreciated. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo8: Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo9: HappyCamper's RFA :-)

Hi Freestylefrappe! Thanks for coming out to my recent RFA. I'm now an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for your honesty and steadfastness during the candidacy. If you ever need me, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing, and I'll see you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 12:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo10: Scimitar's RfA

I understand concerns about my inexperience. . . so if you have any concerns or problems with my edits, please make sure to contact me and set it right. Thanks for taking the time, at any rate, to express your feelings on my RfA.--Scimitar ^parley 15:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo11: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#DanielCD

Please review your oppose to the above nomination, I have a feeling you may want to change it. You'll see what I mean! Thanks. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Convo12: Ulayiti's RfA

Hi Freestyle, and thanks for your support and the kind words you left at my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Convo13: My RfA

Freestyle-- I am sorry it took me so long to respond. Thank you for your comments on my RfA. JETFA was never meant to offend anyone. I have answered your, and other's, comments on my RfA page. I do not urge you to change your vote, rather, I just want people to hear my side of the story. Thank you so much for your time. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed your comments on User talk:MONGO and must disagree with you. I do not, nor ever have "worked closely" with User:Hipocrite. His query about my desire about being an admin was as out-of-the-blue as they come. I had only interacted with him a few times, and frankly, disagreed with him many of those times. I hope you do not judge me on who nominated me, and urge you not to try and persuade others to do that either. I understand Hipocrite nominated me, but that wasn't my decision. Thank you. I have copied this onto MONGO's page as well. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't even think anyone would ever even join JETFA. I thought it would be me complaining to the empty theatre. But I see how you could have gotten confused. I didn't even really know much about Hipocrite when he asked to nominate me. I was just happily surprised someone thought I was up to the task. Cheers my friend. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Convo14: Er.

Have you and I had an interaction at some point that leads you to hate me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Convo15: Is there an RfA title not taken?

"Once more and they think to thank you." ~Gertrude Stein

Like so many others, I shall take this opportunity to thank you for the vote on my RfA. --Maru (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Convo16: Gyrofrog RfA

I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Albania

Convo1: Tiraspol

Indeed, it would be useful if it had any information in it. However, it has so many blanks, question marks and such that it looks absolutely terrible. That is why I reverted it. Ambi 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the template - many cities have it, and it works well. However, it makes no sense to have an infobox that does not contain any information. Until that point, all the ???s and blank spaces look horribly ugly. So I've again reverted. Ambi 04:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. I'm not reverting because of any cosmetic aspects. I'm reverting because the infobox contains no information. What on earth is the point of adding an infobox that doesn't contain any information? Ambi 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Convo 2: Re:Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

Hi. It is cool to know that you haven't got bad intentions. I really don't know, and this is the first time I have heard of significant Bulgarian minority located in the north of the country :-) (I live there). I don't know where did you get that fact? I think that is entirely inaccurate. And if you're not sure about my intentions, please have a look at the Kosovar's talk page... I'll probably write some other remarks at the Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia talk page, you might want to have a look. Best regards. --FlavrSavr 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Al-Sirât

I don't think talk pages are normally deleted unless there's pretty extreme circumstances. Why do you want this one deleted? You could always blank it instead. Tuf-Kat 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think this could qualify as a speedy delete, though. I suggest nominating it at Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion. Tuf-Kat 02:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

RFA voting

I noticed on Shauri's RFA and at least one other you voted in opposition due to a lack of experience. I've noticed that several users seem to feel this way but dont always vote. If we could come to some sort of baseline agreement for what users meet, and voted as a group, we could act more effectively in stopping inexperienced users from attaining adminship. I will try and compile a list of other users who vote in similar patterns. --freestylefrappe 21:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Durin has been compiling some interesting information regarding this. An editor tends to gain my confidence once they have surpassed the 3000-edits mark, as long as those edits are somewhat evenly dispersed amongst article space and other areas of Wikipedia such as user talk pages, policy discussion pages and deletion pages. --Bahn Mi 00:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not intruding, but it sounds like I might be a candidate for your list, Freestyle. My standards seem fairly clse to Bahn's as far as experience and editcount goes. --Maru (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Convo1: Terrorism in India

Thanks for copy-editing the article. Your work is really appreciated. Cheers --IncMan July 6, 2005 19:12 (UTC) Go ahead. Can you write a section on all the major terrorist activities which have taken place in India including the Ayodhya attack? Thanks --IncMan 03:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Convo2: State terrorism: still in use ?

Hello, Freestylefrappe. I am removing the {{inuse}} tag from the State terrorism page for now, as the article is obviously not "actively undergoing a major edit" while you are away for a vacation. BTW, should the Reign of Terror be mentioned in this article ? This nasty period during the French Revolution began on September 5, 1793. I expect some traffic on the 212nd anniversary tomorrow, another reason to avoid the 'is use' tag on the 'State terrorism' page. Hope you are okay with this. Happy editing. :-) -- PFHLai 04:00, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Okay. No problem. :-) -- PFHLai 04:18, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Convo 3: Re: Terrorism

Well, we can not call murder "terrorism" can we? That way whenever someone is murdered every second, will that be called "terrorism"? Usually terrorism refers to massive attacks on large populations in order to acheive a large political goal. A kidnap murder of a journalist doesn't really do much. Well, I guess it could be some sort of minor terrorism, but there is no widespread terrorizing. I don't know whether it should be readded.

I think it is fair that you started that article, but please watch out because it will become biased really fast; that is the case on most articles dealing with South-Asian issues. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Convo 4: Regarding terrorism...

I saw your suggestion after i'd reverted it and I don't mind removing that heading, but is there any reason? I don't think any talkin to anon editor is fruitful since he just deletes anything posted either in his talk page or in the articles, which he doens't want to read on. I feel he is like a horse with blinders and yet accuses others of POV. Also, as a small suggestion, you could archive your talk page since it has become fairly large. Idleguy 11:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe this is coming from Idleguy, the person who has constantly pushed an anti-Pakistan POV on every article he edits. Anyone who sees the edit history of that article will have no doubt on the type of POV that he is pushing. Constantly he links to pro-Indian sites as his sources. Just looking at what idleguy wants to do to the intro is self-explanatory. I have only made your statements encyclopedia-worthy, but your definition of NPOV is to copy material from a nationalist Indian newspapers. I don't need to say anymore about this, since regardless of what wikipedia policy says, you will maintain the same tactics. Perhaps you should heed your own advice once in a while. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does this chap follow me around? Even in a reply to another user's message? He's either nuts or doesn't realise his pro-islamic POV guise in the articles he's editing. if the guy thinks pak authors and BBC/TIME articles are indian nationalists, then i can only chuckle. :) Idleguy 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bektashi

May I learn what was "racist" in the sample jokes I put in Humor & Legacy section in the Bektashi article and why they were deleted? I can't believe this is serious. I am strongly offended with this meaningless accusation. I guess you consider them offensive against sunni muslims, but they are not considered offensive by sunni muslims in Turkey, these jokes are also common among them. Moreover, bektashis and sunni muslims share the same religion, ethnicity, and culture, so there is no western-sense "racial" discrimination between them. Even if we assume that the jokes could be considered offensive today from a universal perspective (which I don't agree as a muslim), this wouldn't make inclusion of them in an encyclopedia "racist", because they tell something about the culture and its history. Censoring these jokes simply means ignoring the culture, which is indeed undemocratic, let alone being unrealistic. Will we delete the article about "Satanic Verses" because it is considered offensive by many muslims? Whatever your response is to my opinions, regardless of how we end up with this article, I am expecting an apology for the "racism" comment. It should not be this easy to label people as racist. AldirmaGonul 04:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not "my" jokes, they belong to the Bektashi culture. I provided links to many websites they are full of samples of these jokes. All of these websites are devoted to the Bektashi culture. They wouldn't put them there if they were "inappropriate" or irrelevant to their culture. I don't know what you know about Bektashi culture, but if this whole thing is about those stories being not confirmant of what you understand from religion, you don't have any right to censor them. Because this is our culture, this is our understanding of religion, and we will not let our way of looking at things suppressed anymore. I will also include a section about Bektashi poetry in there, and probably you won't be able to stand what's in that poetry as they will not obey your understanding of religion. Will you then tell me "there is no place to poetry in an article about religion?" This is what Bektashi culture is about, and this kind of censorship is unacceptable. 14:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Maru etc.

I answered on my talk page to keep things in one place. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reverts in Terrorism in India

I saw that you'd reverted my edits and thought maybe it was a mistake. Because in the previous version, the subsection Ayodhya crisis looked like a news briefing than an encyclopedic tone. And the reason for removing the mohd. afroze para was that it was a conviction that took place in Maharashtra and not the actual terrorism that was spoken about. If we include the court cases and their verdit, then we'll have endless pages since that's the number of terrorists who are languishing behind bars. If you feel his story has to be told, then his background and the actual terrorist incidents of his gang in Maharashtra or elsewhere should be included before finishing his story with the convinction part, that way people can know what he did instead of reading only his sentence which seems to have propped from nowhere. Hope you got my point. Tx Idleguy 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)