![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. Klonimus has not edited Wikipedia since February 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Just a quick comment... on your user page, you ask that other WPians don't "quickly judge" you as a Christian simply because you're citing the bible. That's a good point. BUT, you yourself are in the habit of "quickly judging" people disagreeing with, for instance, you or GRider, as 'deletionists'. That is equally wrong. The issue is far less black-n-white than you suggest, and encouraging factionalism is not going to help anyone. Radiant _* 10:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your activism on this issue Klonimus. I think you might find the Final Statement on my usertalk page interesting. As you will read, I have moved my pages to Wikinfo to avoid Wikipedia's politics and for other non-emotional reasons. Still, though, thanks for your kind words. They prompted me to write my Final Statement, and I appreciate your encouragement. Good luck to you always! AboutWestTulsa 21:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I thought I should try to apologise on behalf of everyone who's been a bit aggressive towards you. Wikipedia does have a policy guideline that one should be nice to newcomers.
Slac gave some of the reasons for people (mistakenly) thinking you were a sockpuppet (and made the most toned down comments towards you so far).
It's good that you are interested in the deletion process, as it is a point of contention on the Wikipedia at the moment. Could I suggest that you take part in the discussions at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus? The page is a place for people to arrive at Consensus on deletion policy for particular classes of pages, in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would also recommend that you read through as many of the policies and guidelines as you can. There are a lot of them, and it can be a bit of a drag when you'd rather be editing articles/getting on with your life, but if you understand the policies which have been accepted by the community, you will have a framework within which to place your arguments. Remember to stay cool, and substantiate your arguments: The goal is to convince users of your point based upon its merit, not to try to manipulate them into factionalism and extreme actions (as GRider did).
Anyway, keep up the contributions, and feel free to engage in policy discussions. I hope you enjoy being part of the community. -- Kieran 09:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In Jordan Middle School, you added:
I removed this because it's not specific to this particular school library, and not information worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. Most schools offer the use of their libraries after hours, so this would belong on a general article which covers school facilities. Also, using the Dewey system is not in any way unusual. Most school libraries use Dewey since it is what you'd expect to find in a public library. A few might use the LoC system, used more by colleges and universities. If it used a system entirely other than these two, then it might be worth recording on the page. You might also be stretching the definition of "special collection" somewhat. As you may have noticed from the VfD, the primary argument employed is that the article does not mention anything about the school which might be any different from any other school, that might set it apart. Wikipedia is not a feature list or a schools guide. We don't have articles on every single bus route in existence, but the general features of a bus route probably get a mention on a transport page somewhere. Similarly, we can't have article on every school in existence (there are millions of them), however, that's no reason why we can't have a page somewhere which describes schools in their cultural context, e.g. schools in the United States will have some things in common, but they might be different from schools in the United Kingdom. I would suggest that people put effort into general articles, and only have individual articles for a school when you have something to say about it that isn't trivia (staff, location, address), and isn't the same as a large number of other schools. Chris talk back 16:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus 23:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you must contribute to this project, please contribute to one which can be used by everyone - Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch. GRider's action in putting it in his userspace was entirely indefensible. I suggest you move to the new project to avoid being associated with it, and as a result being labelled as disruptive. Chris talk back 03:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is intellectual dishonesty always conscious deception? Or can it also stem from self-deception? I thought the latter but I may be mistaken. Andries 08:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
klominus, why are your so brutal to undo so much hard work? how can newbies learn if you revert their hard work? there must have been a better way to let someone know there is a problem. klominus, you must not mean it when you say happy editing! 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus,
I've brought this here since I thought the VfD discussion was definitely straying well away from its point. As you say, "a great encyclopedia is not built by obscurantism and deletionism." I don't believe that most contributors to Wikipedia—even the ones who vote to delete articles on VfD—are supporters of obscurantism and deletionism. Many might be insulted by the insinuation that they're trying to conceal or erase knowledge. Moreover, labelling someone as a deletionist (or worse) isn't likely to change their mind or help to reach a consensus.
Pardon my drifting into the metaphorical, but I look at Wikipedia like a garden. I believe it should be encouraged to grow. I also believe that a garden requires occasional pruning and weeding. The former I see as analogous to copyediting; the latter to deletion. Sometimes it makes sense to gather similar plants together through article merger; a sickly plant that would get mowed out in the middle of the lawn might do well when allowed to cross-pollinate with its fellows in a sheltered greenhouse. Different editors have differing perspectives on what constitutes a 'weed'. I don't think that constitutes bad faith, merely a difference of opinion.
Back to GRider, now, and the literal world. How do you know that GRider was seeking to "demonstrate the unjust nature of the decision" of the ArbCom? Why do you presume that he is the victim of "an angry and organized bunch of deletionists"? Speaking for myself, I participated in both informal efforts to communicate with GRider as well as the RfCs and RfAr not because I am an angry deletionist but because he was taking actions that contravened established Wikipedia policy and (much more important) disrupted Wikipedia's normal functioning. GRider refused to participate in any of these processes.
His steadfast refusal to communicate with other Wikipedians about his behaviour is what ultimately brought about his ban. Perhaps you might be surprised by the ArbCom's openmindedness if he were to open a dialogue rather than ignore their rulings. It's possible that a change to the ArbCom ruling might be arranged to allow him to vote on VfD, but nobody—not even GRider himself—has asked. (I dare say, however, that any right he might have to participate in VfD is on very thin ice, given that before the ArbCom decision he was doing everything in his power to disrupt the deletion process.) -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lovely call on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis ("Penises are always notable, unless they are merely stubs")! Nothing quite like Wikihumour. -- bainer 06:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please accept my heartfelt gratitude for all that you've accomplished during my time of oppressed silence. With the ongoing contributions made by you and others like you, Wikipedia still has a gleam of hope. One day we just may be the sum of all human knowledge. Don't lose sight, don't lose hope. -- GRider\ talk 19:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I really agreed with what you said about Islamofascism. UDoN't!wAn* 23:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that it is a good idea to deliberately invite newbies into the middle of edit wars. Firebug 05:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh gosh you're talking about me. Is that why the material on Aryan Nation disappeared? Someone just deleted it because they didn't like it? Walkingeagles 06:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus, I added my material to your article, I'm not sure if it fits if it does that's great. Will take your advice about that although it's easier working off the browser. There are certainly some unfriendlies out there. It's inevitable al Qaeda etc will always get people upset one way or the other. Walkingeagles 07:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In looking around for Islamic fascism, I was reading about Nick Berg of blessed memory and noticed Conspiracy theories about Nick Berg. Would be interested in your opinion, should it be improved or deleted or whatever? Walkingeagles 07:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I must state that you're polarizing the issue. My aim is not to get schools deleted - indeed I find schools not important enough to warrant the daily fuss on VfD. My aim, rather, is to get people working together towards concensus in a civilized and NPOV way. Please answer me this... I believe SWG to be POV, and you seem to concur. I also believe NPOV to be absolute and non-negotionable (since that is one of Jimbo's founding principles, on WP:NPOV). I finally believe that a NPOV schoolwatch exists in mainspace. So my question is, how can you, in good faith, oppose merging the two? Radiant_* 08:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. From a pratical standpoint I don't think there's any point in doing a lot of work on it until the VfD is over and its fate decided; it appears that most people are not voting based on content or whether or not it is an encyclopedic topic, but based on whether or not they personally like the idea of such an article in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Greetings Klominus. I hope I am not disturbing you, but I thought the "result" of this debate on VfD in which we both participated was quite interesting. There was a 2-1 majority to delete, which I think created consensus to delete. Some admins, and perhaps yourself as well, would argue that a larger majority is needed to delete and that no consensus was reached and the article should have been kept as you wanted. Instead, the admin who closed out the discussion declared that the result of the debate was merge and redirect, which was counter to the wishes of everyone who voted on the article. I consulted with the admin in question, Mindspillage, and she suggested starting a topic on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard since I was unhappy with her call. I and Ejrrjs posted our grievances there and were dismayed to discover that fellow admins were supporting her decision to merge and redirect as a wise one. I know we disagree on VfD nearly all of the time, and I hope you can see past that for a moment. While I feel that the article should have been deleted with 66% approval, I think the far more important issue is an admin coming in and disregarding all the votes that were cast, keep and delete alike. If this does not bother you, I am sorry to have wasted your time with this message. If you feel that this was a subversion of the VfD vote (in your case because there was no consensus and the article should have been kept rather than merged), then it might be helpful to have someone who voted keep weigh in as well to illustrate the larger problem evident here. Thank you for your time. Indrian 00:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Your article, List of Saudi Arabian Jews, was speedy-deleted for no content. Since the purpose of this article creation was to call attention to anti-Semitism in Saudi Arabia, I created an article specifically on this subject. You are, of course, free to edit it if you so choose. But please keep NPOV in mind, and try to source as many statements as possible. I was able to find several sources so that it was not necessary to include unsubstantiated allegations. Firebug 00:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Klonimus
Maha Jana has been restored and moved to the proper name, Mahajana High School. Now that you have gotten your wish, will you or some of your friends work to improve the article? Indeed I must say that to you and a number of other users have done a good job in making several of these high school articles good. Also, I suggest you make up with Mel Etitis, he is a good administrator even though he made a mistake in deleting the article. For the record, he was also the one who finally undeleted the article. Sjakkalle 09:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Please stop disrupting WP:VFD to make a WP:POINT. Note the ArbCom ruling, "VFD is Wikipedia's immune system ... and needs to be treated seriously by all involved." R adiant _* 08:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you go to victorhanson.com and search for "Islamofascism", it returns eight results. Here is a sample:
June 14, 2004 Feeding the Minotaur Our strange relationship with the terrorists continues. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online
Thinking back on all the instances where I remember him using the term, Hanson would seem use Islamofascism to describe both nominally Muslim, secular nationalist-socialist dictators like Saddam Hussein, as well as primarily religiously-motivated terrorists like Osama bin Laden. -- Jpbrenna 19:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. The old page is way better than the new!
Because of some of the comments I received by you and others on my talk page, and some other events, I have decided to return today -- but with a few self-imposed restrictions on myself. See my user page if you are interested. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Happy editing and see you around ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus,
Thanks for the information. I simply had never taken the time to look at the archive page -- it's so much better than what I was doing, and it will be very useful to analyse the data there when we argue about deletion policy and schools. I'll add some info on Schoolwatch to help others know to put deleted or kept schools in the archive, when I get time -- or you could do it. -- Zantastik 06:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! While I respect your opinion of me, I'd like to say that I've changed since we've first met. I admit to having been somewhat trigger-happy in the past, but I've become convinced that organizing (or adding to) existing content is far more beneficial to the 'pedia than getting rid of sub-par articles that most people wouldn't notice in the first place. Thus I'd consider myself a strong mergist, and please realize that I contributed heavily to WP:FICT (which basically calls for including any and all articles on fiction) and I even wrote a rule of thumb "Do not nominate schools for deletion". Of course that may or may not matter to you, but since we haven't spoken much recently I thought I'd mention it.
As a side point, I don't accuse you of being a sockpuppet. I did once asked the question whether you were one, but that's far from the same (my exact words, "This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here?"). And in that case, it was quickly cleared up that you weren't, and I haven't brought up the matter since. We all make mistakes sometimes, don't we? Yours, R adiant _* 08:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Your comment here is offensive and Counter productive! - it should be removed -- NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 17:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. If you have an opinion, please vote. I am notifying people who have been active on either side of the debate. — Lowellian ( talk) 23:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought that you might want to consider this RfA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#BrandonYusufToropov -- Stereotek 19:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Broken link. Shows error message: "Please resubmit your search Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information."
Hi - why do you keep changing God to Allah on the bombing page? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Hello, there is a vote to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Consider my name added to the list.
Regards,
Guy Montag 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I thought that this might interest you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG -- Karl Meier 12:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting article. I was thinking the same thoughts when I read it a week ago. I think I'll add some information from it. You should too.
Guy Montag 01:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Just for your information: [3] Existentializer banned for "suspicion" based on someone's vandalizing his user page. This is way out of line. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your 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. -- Baron Larf 15:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
If you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the current dispute there, and giving your thoughts? Thx. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Please see User:Heraclius latest edits pointing the articles to each other. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius is refusing to compromise and I have requested help with a third opinion. I will appreciate if you will take a look at Talk:Din (Islamic term) and give your opinion. Thank you. Nickbee 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering which of the factual errors you had in mind when you put the tag on. -- John Z 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that deletion. They sure didn't belong on the page. Just plain weird. :-) -- Cberlet 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius is rv warring, and he has announced that he has alerted other editors. Nickbee does not seem to be around. Please see if some sense can be talked to the rv warrior. Thank you. Exmuslim 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Deryc k C. 14:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! Didn't notice them until just now, for some reason. Babajobu 15:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I actually placed a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle right before seeing your comment on my talk page. I've voted on the third one now as well. I'm a Muslim myself, but that doesn't mean I'd want to hide all indications of there being any criticism at all of my faith. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I saw the VfD on the Nazi Conncetion of Islamic Terrorism article. It's pretty ridiculous that BYT is trying to delete it.
On a related note, I have been thinking for a while to start an article on the connections between Nazism and Islamism. The affair of the Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII is the most notable example. But there are also reports in the media of neo-Nazi organizations collaborating with radical Islamist organizations in anti-Semetic efforts. Furthermore, in places such as Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, anti-Semetic propoganda from the Nazi era are widely disseminated through the print media and over public broadcasting. Anti-Semetic propoganda originating from the Nazi era is rife in Muslim countries. Take for example the statements of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, that "Jews rule the world by proxy." -- Zeno of Elea 06:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Klonimus. Don't forget to sign your vote on the AfD. Cheers, Joyous (talk) 18:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it annoying when people take a subject that you care about and wrap it up into a conspiracy theory that makes your legitimate complaints seem bizarre? Anyway, happens all the time. Excellent page. I added some more books and generally tweaked language and added details, but your basic page had already done all the hard work. :-)
Hi. We probably disagree on the other books. They seem too marginal for an entry, but I do not have either expertise or strong opinions about them. -- Cberlet 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus, and thanks for your support of 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) 16:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
They are trying to get me banned? I cooperate, I discuss, and I rarely, if ever personally attack good standing editors. They have no basis for such a ban. As for the Zionist terrorism, as always there will have to be a compromise, but I don't understand what qualifies these people to be in Zionist terrorism catagory instead of lone wolf terrorism catagory, which is more appropriate to their motivations and actions. They were not sponsored by any group, trained by any group, or received logistics from any group. On what basis can they keep them in that article? Personally, I am tired of self described kings of NPOV like Zero, who are little less than Arabists, to push their pov as though it was the truth. No one wants to bring their beliefs on the table and discuss them. I don't hide my political affiliation and yet I get more slack for being honest than those who hide behind veneers of neutrality. Guy Montag 08:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
hello can you please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautilus Middle School it is being voted on again because Dismas wants to erase two dozen schools today Yuckfoo 20:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey. This image should be by all rights deleted by now since Template:No source has been on it for a long time. I was wondering if you had a source and one that would show/prove its copyright status. You changed it to fairuse but you must have reasoning for that move. What makes it fair use? I know you wrote about that book which I think used this image on the cover. Maybe that will help to explain why this is fair use or what exactly its status is. Without explanation your fair use is conjecture and... it (besides it bad quality) is actually a pretty good picture. gren グレン 06:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:
Yours,
James F. (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus. I thought you might be interested in improving the Religion in Israel article. Cheers. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought that you might be interested in this VfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Everlasting_Hatred:_The_Roots_of_Jihad -- Karl Meier 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for adding
Industrial rendering to the category. If you happen to know anything more about the process - like what types of boilers(?), or filtering is used, that'd be most excellent...
~ender 2005-10-13 18:59:MST
You said that the recent edit looked like it was copy/pasted from somewhere... If you mean this [4] version, then yes, that would be why I reverted it to this [5] one. Your edit leaves the two stubs, is unwikified, and still looks like a copy/paste. raylu 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Question for you, Klonimus, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Arab-Israeli_reference. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Look Klonimus, I had nothing against you personally, but since this rfa began, you have started to gather people to vote against me in bad faith. Much of what you do I interpret as POV too, especially these personal attacks against BYT or other Muslim editors. I barely have ever contacted you or even met you, so it seems highly odd that you would go to such lengths to try this and exaggerate this bias towards me. However, I am assuming good faith over the part of your last message that was not personal attack and I would like to hope that we can get along whenever we meet later in the future. Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - seems quiet now. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, ok. I don't think I've ever been called "sourpuss" before! ^_^
Ancient history, all right? -
brenneman
(t)
(c)
11:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Klonimus, those were some very nice things you said about me, and I appreciate it and value your opinion. Regards, Babajobu 21:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know we shared a mutual acquaintance!
Kade
08:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a possible solution to the dispute on Template talk:Suicide#Compromise proposal. When you have time, take a look at it and note your possible assent or not in the appropriate section. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus. I wonder if you might review your vote at Ramallite's RFA, and perhaps re-consider. I think if you look at his recent edits and comments you would find little objectionable in them, and, in fact, much to admire. I think his being an admin would be a real asset to Wikipedia. Regards, Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It certainly looks like a violation of his Arbitration ruling to me, but perhaps you should get it clarified with the Arbitrators who ruled on it. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have stated some opinions on Talk:Nikah about the scope of the Pipes debate, if you wouldn't mind commenting that'd be great. gren グレン 00:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes I certainly know what you mean. I do walk a fine line at times and so on but I try not to cross over it. -- CltFn 06:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested in becoming a member of any organization that accepts people like me as a member. I'm not yet convinced that France is a victim of islamic extremism, unfortunately, my opinion is that the socialist ideal of a "right" to employment is their reason for rioting. When people believe that their rights, real or perceived, have been violated, they will become violent. Kade 07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, even if you don;t have a job, that's no excuse to riot and commit arson. That's not what civilised people do. At the end of the day, every mob action is an aggregation of the actions of individual people. I refuse to accept explanations for events which absolve people of thier personal responsibility to behave in a moral fashion
Apparently you didn't find my joke funny.
Kade
I have started looking at who voted
take this forexample:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite&diff=prev&oldid=27185058
Never voted for any RfA. Active for a week . How did he got to vote ? what does he know about interaction with the candidate and more important : who told him to support ?
Zeq 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
http://www.slate.com/id/2129921?nav=nw
Read it, read it. Kade 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
no problem, I was a bit uppity myself (I should know better than to quibble like this) -- I'm just a mergist I quess, but the article does no harm :) best, dab (ᛏ) 09:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:Gilgamesh is now imposing his own views by changing the transliterated Hebrew names of articles with redirects to unreadable Hebrew names and fonts, as if his criteria are the only ones to reckon with, when there are in fact several. My computer, as I am sure many others' as well, does not pick up his type of fonts, and thus he is messing up articles such as Safed, Hadera, Holon, Afula, Arad, Israel and many others defacing them and making them unreadable on the web. He is going to DESTROY the normal usage of Wikipedia's Hebrew transliterations to satisfy his own needs without there being any consensus. Common usages are being thrown out in favor of obscure and pedantic academic usages familiar to only a handful of unkown academics. He should be called upon to stop BEFORE he rushes to do further damage without any consensus being reached. All his changes should therefore be reverted. See all his recent contributions via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gilgamesh I thank you for your interest, and urge all readers here to act. IZAK 04:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
At the present time there is a serious discussion taking place, aiming at some consensus that will result in "official" Wikipedia guidelines about how Hebrew should be used and written in Wikipedia articles. Because of your past or ongoing interest in these type of articles with Hebrew words in them, your attention is called to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [6] TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE "DOORS ARE SHUT" PLEASE SEE THE RELATED DISCUSSION PAGE AT Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) [7] Thank you! IZAK 04:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2005_civil_unrest_in_France&diff=28183360&oldid=28181683
Thanks.
BTW, Ramallite start showing his "true colors":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeq#Your_.22no_hate.22_article Zeq 06:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?
I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:
Thanks for your attention. - Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus. You've now inserted the same content on the Grand Mufti and his relationship with the Nazis four times into Religion in Israel, without attempting to discuss what is clearly not a straight issue. Please do not continue to ignore the contentiousness of the issue, and join in the discussion rather than pretending there was none and continuing to reinsert the same lines. jnothman talk 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
i have been looking into this yuber fellow and I see you have had problems with him too. all he does is revert me everywhere especially Syria and History of Syria. he is a syrian apologist. can anything be done about him? John McW 15:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thank you for your note. I am so frustrated with yuber, and you are right the admins here are sympathetic to him. he's not the first one i've seen here like that either. 6 months is a long time to wait i've already given up here a few times. you said "Just make sure you have good cited sources, and he can't touch you", but that is the problem I do bring good cited sources and he deletes them anyway. sometimes he deletes them and says "deleting uncited" even while he deletes the links I put in! then he puts in all sorts of syrian apologetic stuff with no cited sources at all! just watch, he will be reverting me on Syria or History of Syria again in a few minutes, or he will get his pet marsden to do it for him. John McW 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
... began at 19:53. May I ask how long you anticipate it taking? BrandonYusufToropov 20:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I would be grateful for your assistance in countering the systematic vandalism of a admin on the List of Dictators page. An administrator is blanking the page every few hours, without any AfD or anything. Yours,
jucifer 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for your feedback at my RfA. Given that your objection was due to my lack of experience, I'd like to invite you to feel free to be quick to raise any concerns that you may have in the future at my Talk page. Good luck with your editing. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy
Thanks for the words of support. Unfortunately I am coming to believe that the Arbcom, or significant parts of it, are stacked against me in this case. The current dispute involves User:Cberlet who is Chip Berlet, a liberal political activist in real life. Cberlet basically filed this case agaist me and 4 other editors for doing nothing more than adding sourced criticisms of his real life person on the Chip Berlet page. There aren't even any real policy violations involved except by Cberlet himself, who has made many venomous personal attacks on me and the other editors (e.g. this). The Arbcom nevertheless jumped to accept his case within about 48 hours, including with a vote to accept by Jayjg who had been a vocal participant in favor of Cberlet during lesser dispute resolutions over the last year. Earlier today Jayjg adamantly refused my request that he recuse himself as the arbitration policy requires, even though he cast votes in favor of Cberlet on a related earlier RfC and made multiple comments espousing Cberlet's positions on articles involving him.
The case seems to be stacked and I fear it's beginning to show on the "proposed decision" page. Currently there are all sorts of proposed findings that allege wrongdoings by every single editor Cberlet accused, including me. Right now they're voting on a proposal that I supposedly "harassed" Cberlet, yet they haven't even posted a link to one single diff showing what I specifically did that was so wrong! The proposed penalty is even more outrageous - they're trying to put me on probation for a year and admonish me to treat Cberlet better (even though I've never insulted him, though he regularly and frequently makes verbally abusive posts about me). Meanwhile there are dozens upon dozens of documented personal attacks and other misbehavior by Cberlet on the evidence page, but as of right now the only proposed sanction against him is a tiny slap on the wrist to avoid excessive involvement in edits to his own page. The entire process is highly disheartening and does not speak well for fairness in hearings on wikipedia. I consider wikipedia to be a great project and the majority of its regular editors are good, decent contributers. The pool of higher ups, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. Quite frankly, whenever I find a dispute around here recently it's always been with a bunch of admins who are trying to prop up their buddies and rule the place with an iron fist! Rangerdude 10:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Found the image here (in french) and here translated in english
You might check this other site too [8] -- CltFn 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote on the "Metric Downsizing" page...thats 2. Chooserr
Vote and discussion on moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism moved to Talk:Islamofascism (term) - Just so you know. -- Chaosfeary 12:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I have warned User:Yuber on his Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus: Please see the Vote for Deletion (vfd) for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 4#Category:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations. Thank you. IZAK 13:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. ( SEWilco 05:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
On Talk:Islamofascism (term) you justify your support vote with the words "This is the emerging concensus on VfD." I have no idea what you are talking about, and asked you to justify the claim in the Comments subsection, which I think you didn't see. Since I think the idea that there is some such consensus is behind several support votes (explicitly by Zeq), can you please respoond to my comment there? Thanks. --- Charles Stewart 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You have in the past commented on Image Galleries nominated for deletion. Most galleries are nominated because the nominators feels that galleries violate WP:NOT. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion ( here). A proposal to modify WP:NOT is here. Please join either or both conversations and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I put this article up for featured status. Your input would be most welcome. -- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the article needs work, and was the target of a meatpuppetry revert war effort coordinated by user:Anonymous editor earlier today.
I've responded in talk to LeeHunter's ludicrous claims trying to equate the writer of one of the sources with a drunk in the alley wearing a tinfoil hat. Your thoughts might be of help.
Thanks.
You added a link to the Yad Vashem article. Unfortuantely it's now broken. Could you please provide the correct link and a more full reference if possible. Otherwise the link should be removed from that article.
For future, it's worth giving more full citations. If you include the article title and author along with the date and publication then others will normally be able to repair the link without your help or find the material in the newspaper's archives. All the best; Mozzerati 12:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Saw this message, what do you think of it? IZAK 06:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC):
To avoid a smear campaign by Anonymous editor ( talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom ( talk · contribs), I have to point out that I'm writing you because you where in the past involved with this user, and AE has in his last RFA many many times campaigned at other users (also to those users who voted oppose), and that he gathered opposition at Babajobu's fist RFA), and that a large part of his wiki-communications are per Email, and there are no policies against this (except the "policy" that it is right if AE does it, but wrong if others do it). I believe in democratic values, so everybody who had any interactions with an user should have the right to be informed and to express his opinion. But I advise you NOT to vote in order to boycott the kind of wiki-politics and wiki-clique behaviour I have seen on the RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2.
You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. ( SEWilco 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC))
What do you mean "for what its worth, I support your message"? Thats Jews are terrorists...? freestylefrappe 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey... I don’t know if you have any interest in this subject anymore, but there is yet another attempt to bury the Islamofascism page elsewhere. If you’re interested, the debate is here: [ [9]] IronDuke 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought that maybe you'd be interested in this vote for deletion. -- Karl Meier 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [10] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thought you would be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus... I see you tagged Page's trend test as needing expert attention. It's long ago, but do you remember why? While I'm not a statistician, I'm reasonably familiar with the technical literature in this area and I can't see anything seriously deficient in the article. Was there a particular area of improvement you felt it needed? An anon is doing some editing on it at the moment, but not everything s/he is doing is accurate so I will have to go back to it soonish. seglea 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Klonimus: You have not enabled your Wikipedia Email feature in your "my preferences" at the top of your user page. Sometimes editors overlook that when it's a useful way of staying in touch with other editors. Best wishes. IZAK 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I recently added a few brief edits to this article. I noticed you had added one of the first sentences: The Case for Israel attempts to refute common criticisms of Israel, and defend Israel as an example of a sucessful Western-style democracy coping with the challanges of Islamic terrorism. I was wondering where you came up with it. I am currently reading the book, and so far I see it as more analytical of the true intent, historical and current, of the two groups. Is that a review or a comment from another source, or is it your interpretation (which is okay)? Please comment. Thanks. -- Shamir1 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Klonimus. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Klonimus. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Klonimus. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Mufti.gif) was found at the following location: User:Klonimus/Islamofascism. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The article List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) -- Lentower 03:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
we have aotincommon email me at: yisrael.chai@gmail.com if you want a political disscussion AniChai 07:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I just thought you would like to know that an article Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad which you had voted on in a previous deletion request has been renominated for deletion: 2nd nomination. Rune X2 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{
prod}}
template to the article
Islam Unveiled, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and
Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at
its talk page. If you remove the {{
prod}}
template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
BJBot (
talk)
15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Klonimus, thank you for your contributions! I am a
bot alerting you that
Non-free files are
not allowed in the user or talk-space. I
removed some files that I found on
User:Klonimus/Islamofascism. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Klonimus/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Klonimus/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Klonimus/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latino_American_Dawah_Organization_(2nd_nomination) - LatinoMuslim 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kindly participate in the voting if you are still around. Thank you.-- Jondel ( talk) 07:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Isteve.com. Since you had some involvement with the Isteve.com redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)