User talk:Netscott/Archive-05

Welcome to the garden.

Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.

Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04

Admin?

Hi, I notice you' re a really active Wikipedian. I was wondering if you would like to be nominated for adminship by me; seems you' d be a good one. (crazytales56297 posting anon from 69.214.31.217) 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after login ~ c. tales ^*talk* 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I no longer remember why the religious display thing was relevant...

... but yes, those do look like religious displays. If I said they weren't, I was wrong. What did this connect to? BYT 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia AfD

I "fixed" it wrong. M'bad. :x Thanks for catching that, though. Luna Santin 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia poll

As BrandonYusufToropov said, "a published Gallup poll about attitudes toward Muslims constitutes "original research" in an article about attitudes toward Muslims? In what universe?".

Your argument here is ridiculous, and I'm going to ask for an admin to block you if you don't stop trying to vandalize the article by removing important and relevant information.

Islamophobia is exactly the same thing as anti-Muslim sentiment; in fact "anti-Muslim" redirects to Islamophobia.

So why do you insist on removing a valuable poll result about anti-Muslim sentiment from an article about anti-Muslim sentiment? Do you have some agenda here?

Deuterium 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be necessary to scientifically "prove" that the poll is relevant to the article. It's obvious to virtually everyone, as the consensus seems to be to keep the poll. If you want a reference that explicitly describes the poll's findings as evidence of Islamophobia to your standards, go ahead and find one, but don't threaten to remove the poll entirely because there isn't one yet. Deuterium 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be interested in this. Tewfik^Talk 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace weasel words

Well, quite a flurry of motions today. First off-- I'm sorry you disagree with Embrace Weasel Words-- I think it makes a good point, but even if you don't, there are many essays in the Wikipedia space that are controversial-- that's why they're essays, rather than guidelines or policies. . Regarding the image on that page-- thank you for spotting in incorrect link. I had considered a couple different potential weasel images before settling on it. Hopefully this resolved the copyright concerns about that image-- if not, let me know (and re-add the relevant templates). --Alecmconroy 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The atribution is in the form of the link to the webpage in which it was downloaded from. If you look at many other CC attribution images, on wikipedia and elsewhere, you'll find his form of attribtion is quite common. If you would like to add more specific attribution information, by all mean, you may add whatever other relevant information was uploaded to flickr by the original author. --Alecmconroy 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Embrace weasel words. Look forward to seeing your response. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.D. references

Do you just systemically hunt down anything that even references that site? Your bias (which you claimed to have none of/hollow claims of complete neutrality during the old AfD) are now even more humorous. rootology (T) 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I had Tony's page on my watchlist from interactions the past couple days, and I saw your name and remembered that you were just the guy that ran that AfD. But when I scanned his Talk page I saw you also had somehow found the Talk page thing (which was news to me). It was just an observation that you appeared to be searching out active references to the ED site, based on these two actions. In regards to your Troll comment, thanks for that. I begin to grow mighty tired of a small irrelevant clique of angsty users tossing that around like a tennis ball. rootology (T) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re AOL vandal

Hi Scott! Thanks for letting me know. I'll reduce the block to 24h as i already s-protected the article. Cheers -- Szvest 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "fair use" rationale

That image is on the Wikimedia Commons. The Commons do not allow for "fair use" rationale. You'd do well to revert Mel Gibson in good faith rather than editing without knowledge of what you are doing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what image you are talking about being on the commons, however, it is irrelevant if it is on the commons or not. Fair Use rationale or a similar free use justification is required on wikipedia. As for reverting in good faith, I did revert in good faith. As for knowing what I am doing, I know what I am doing. I suspect that you feel that your picture should remain. It is an awful picture and other pictures will do much better and can be supplied under fair use rationale. --Blue Tie 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit war on 3RR page

I've blocked you for 12h for this William M. Connolley 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]