Archives
(6/07-8/09)

Contents 1 Barnstar 2 Talk:Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/GA1 3 Keeping an eye on an IP vandal 4 Date formatting 5 The Shells 6 WT:DELETE 6.1 Wikihounding; Accusation of disruptive editing for asking question (note: this is my (epeefleche's) header, for purposes of maintenance/indexing of my talk page, and does not reflect Rjanag's view) 7 Response to Rjanag; His two communications with the closing admin protesting the admin's close of the first AfD 8 Timing 9 Encouragement 10 Wikipedia is as much a social thing as it is logical; COI 11 Barnstar 12 WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration 13 Apologies 13.1 Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration 13.2 A word in your ear 14 Barnstar 15 Redlinks 16 Anwar al-Awlaqi 17 WikiProject Invite 18 your edit to Judaism 19 3RR, abuse of Twinkle, harassment of IP editor (EF update: Closed as Declined) 20 ANI Notification 21 Working Man's Barnstar for Inner Temple Library 22 Well, That Was Embarrassing 23 Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario 24 Thanks 25 Re: comments 26 Hey 27 CAIR 28 Johari 29 Rudy York 30 AE 31 Unfortunately 32 AfD nomination of Punchball 33 KSM (band) 34 Abdullah El-Faisal

[edit] Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/GA1

Your comments at Talk:Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/GA1 were helpful, if that is what you are asking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Tx -- didn't want to step on your toes as the official reviewer.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. regardless of what you said, I am not sure where else you could have actually put your thoughts. That is a reasonable place. I am not sure where else I would look for other opinions, since it is not likely I am going to receive them by email.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. On your talk page, perhaps? But that would have limited the audience to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping an eye on an IP vandal

One way to do this is to add the IPVandal template to your user page. You can the keep an eye on the vandal. 204.11.132.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting

Could you explain why you changed all of the dates on Chase Utley? The article used a consistent format and there was no reason that I can see to alter the format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining, I understand. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Shells

Because the album release has passed and there has been no further significant coverage, I have re-nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WT:DELETE

Please actually read the discussion that you linked to. It's not about what you seem to think it is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihounding; Accusation of disruptive editing for asking question (note: this is my (epeefleche's) header, for purposes of maintenance/indexing of my talk page, and does not reflect Rjanag's view)

And may I ask what is the meaning of this? Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first message was regarding the AfD discussion. As for the second, looking at someone's contribs during a discussion is not wikihounding. Are you going to answer the question? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're talking about. Precisely whose AfD are you accusing me of disrupting? And precisely how are you accusing me of disrupting it? And precisely what are you telling me I did wrong, and should not be doing?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies, I meant to say disrupting Kww's RfA, not AfD. The point is that if you're not there to judge Kww as a candidate, but to find ammo in one of your own disputes, another person's RfA is not really the right place to do that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Anyway, suggesting that my looking at another user's contributions during a discussion constitutes "wikihounding" would have absolutely no basis, as I know you've also looked at my contributions during at least one of our past meetings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Did you not just read what I said above? It's not hounding. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is my view that you are Wiki-hounding me by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time you've done it -- as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.

One last point -- you deleted my header. This is my talk page. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you think to know my motives for posting a message? I didn't leave the message because I don't want you to enjoy editing; you can go on doing all the other stuff you do here and I don't care and won't interfere. I posted a message to ask you a question about an edit you made that was relevant to the current discussion—a question which, I might add, you still have not answered.

About your header: you have the right to do stuff with your talk page, but you don't have the right to edit other people's comments, including creating fake headers for them (for the specifics, see WP:TALK). But I don't care, keep the stupid header if you want, that's not the main point of this message. Nor are the ridiculous wikihounding accusations, which I'm going to ignore from now on because I know you look through other user's contributions just as much as anyone else does. Mainly I'm just looking for an answer to my RfA question which you have still avoided. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive. I don't believe I owe you any more response than that request. And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you shouldn't ask questions of anyone. I just asked for your explanation of why it's a legitimate question for that forum. If you don't want to answer, fine; I'll just keep on thinking it's not legitimate. You have your opportunity to change my mind, but oh well. I guess I tried. Not my fault that at every turn you have insisted on turning the discussion into a personal argument over how I have personally wounded you and am personally out to get you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. Rjanag -- you're writing to me, not some editor who didn't read what you actually wrote, and may not notice the difference. You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read. Like I already said, looking at your contribs is not wikihounding (you do it too). And apparently it's "inappropriate and disruptive" when I don't respond to your repeated requests, but it's perfectly fine when you don't respond to mine (specifically, my request that you answer my question, or that you not screw with my edits by making fake headers). So there's yet another bit of hypocrisy from the massive fountain of hypocrisy you've been spewing all day.

But by now we're just going in useless circles around each other, and it's become obvious that you either have not been reading my messages or lack the faculties to understand them. So I see no further point in continuing to respond to one another; I'm going to make an effort not to anymore. And I sincerely hope that after this AfD ends I never run into you again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Judging by your contributions to other recent RfAs, I guess I can take it on good faith that you were posting these questions to Kww and RayaYang because you decided to vote in support of admins who you feel share your views about how AfDs work, so in that case your question wasn't disruptive—when I first saw it I had the impression that you were just going around to RfAs gathering "ammo" to use in the AfD, but perhaps that was wrong. So I withdraw my concerns about your RfA messages (although I still object to your wikihounding accusations, but that's neither here nor there). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Rjanag; His two communications with the closing admin protesting the admin's close of the first AfD

Answering Rjanag's question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination), but moving it here to give that page a rest (since Rjanag apparently does not agree with my suggestion that we focus on WP:BAND and WP:DELETE issues at the Afd), Rjanag twice protested the close of the first AfD to the closing admin (without success) as follows:

First: On September 28, 2009, at 00:21 (UTC) Rjanag wrote to the closing admin: "I'm a little surprised at your closing this as keep, since almost all the keep votes (when you discount the one made by a blocked sockpuppeteer) were, as far as a remember, a recourse to a non-notable award they were nominated for and didn't win (and the article on that award has since been blanked and redirected), and did not get featured on television or anywhere on the MTV video music awards website...."

The admin responded: "I didn't see either argument on either side come up on top as I stated in the AFD closure (hence the "no consensus" close). I did read through it, and I don't think it would have made much a difference with the sock !vote in there or not, as the registered users on the "keep" side made their point clear."

Second: On September 28, 2009 at 00:25 (UTC) Rjanag wrote: "... not meaning to criticize your judgment or anything, I just don't agree in this case."

The admin responded: "No problem. We saw two different things."[1] --Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not two separate protests, that's part of one discussion. (When grown-ups have discussions, they listen and respond to one another.) Besides, the second message wasn't even an attempt to protest his deletion to him; it was just notifying him that I was opening a DRV. Quit misrepresenting the facts (to borrow your own turn of phrase). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Those are two separate messages. Sent at two different times.

You disagreed. He responded. You sent a second message, again expressing your disagreement with his decision. He responded to your second "I just don't agree" with a second response. I may not be great in math, but two I can count to.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you may not be great in thinking, either. Two messages in the course of one discussion does not mean I protested two separate times. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your continued incivility is not appreciated. As to the substance, I disagree. Your two separate messages, sent at two different times (with a response in between), are above, along with the time each was sent and the response each received.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it if you refuse to even attempt to understand a simple conversation. My second message, Ok, thanks. I will list it for DRV; not meaning to criticize your judgment or anything, I just don't agree in this case., was clearly not a new request that he reconsider a second time; it was a response to his latest message, letting him know what I was doing. There is no other explanation for this than that you are "misrepresenting the facts", again, by trying to claim that I protested more times than I actually did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You had already told him you disagreed in message one (and that your were considering appealing it). And he had responded. There was absolutely no reason for you to send a second message saying that you disagreed with him. But you did. And he obviously felt obliged to respond to your second expression of disagreement by saying he saw things differently.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever stop and consider maybe some people have different communication styles than you and like to end a cordial discussion with a quick wrap-up or closing? Or do you always presume to know what's best in other people's conversations? Since you're such an expert, do you think you can go through all my old discussions and teach me which of my messages were unnecessary? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

15 days after a non-consensus (unlike a keep) is on the short side, but not ridiculous. We really do try to a reach a decision. If it closes again as non-consensus, there can even be a third. Greg's advice to the contrary was not correct. The only way to prevent it is to improve the article as much as possible in the interim. I know absolutely nothing about bands, so I apologize that I cannot help further, except to give you the advice that it is always better to limit a comment at Wikipedia to a few medium-size paragraphs. People here get very impatient. Figure out what's the strongest points, and say just them. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion continued here.

[edit] Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is as much a social thing as it is logical; COI

It appears to me that the fix was in and you can cry “foul” now. One first stop would be to check the rules of AfDs. I’m rather skeptical that it is standard practice for AfDs to run for only one week. On RfCs (Request for Comments), two weeks is normally the standard. So to cut off voting and declare an outcome on a vote while it is still active smacks of calling the game early because one side has a two-vote advantage and the fix is in. Moreover, on Wikipedia, a 13/11 split would never be considered to be a consensus to do something. It’s also important to note that a “consensus” on Wikipedia is as much the weight and logic of the arguments as it is simple vote counts. Any rational reading of the arguments would not lead a rational person to conclude that the ‘delete’ proponents “discredited” the arguments of the other side. That is just so much garbage. Any band that had been mentioned in Seventeen magazine and had been a top-three finalist in an MTV contest is clearly notable.

So… What happened? You did, after all, go up against an admin and these people are quite socially active. This isn’t at all unusual. You might consider going to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard if this injustice bothers you. I’m sure they will direct you to go to a more appropriate venue to “formally” do something, but I’d start there given how flagrant this appears to me. I personally think it might be time to de-Sysop some admins here. Greg L (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I don't know where you get your bad information, but you should really do some reading before you go around crying foul. 7 days is the usual time for AfDs, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page and WP:AfD#How an AfD discussion is closed. Secondly, complaining that "a 13/11 split would never be considered consensus" shows that you clearly don't understand that AfDs are not votes. As for which arguments are "better"... of course you think the keep arguments proved without doubt that the band is "clearly notable", and of course people like me think that the delete arguments did the opposite. That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it; both your opinion and mine are worthless by now, as we're quite involved. The issue isn't whether you think your arguments are better, it's whether they convinced the closer.

You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop with your ranting as well as your long-standing battle with Epeefleche. It might also help if you could read what I actually wrote as opposed to what you imagine I wrote. I wrote “One first stop would be to check the rules of AfDs. I’m rather skeptical that it is standard practice for AfDs to run for only one week.” I didn’t state that the standard was longer than seven days; I suggested he first check the rules to ascertain the facts. As for the “logic” of arguments on both sides of the issue, yeah… ditto. Anyone who has been around Wikipedia long enough knows what happened here (where a AfD is called while still quite active and with a 13/11 split); it should have been extended. So please don’t ride in here like a cowboy who is all tall, proud and handsome, wearing a hat that is whiter than white and act all indignant. It doesn’t impress. And don’t bother leaving “you’ve got mail” tags on my talk page; I don’t look forward to hearing from you since I find your behavior as an admin in this latest matter to be abhorrent and feel soiled dealing with you. Greg L (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that 7 days is standard: I don't think it's long enough either. I wouldn't blame a closing admin for wanting to stop the discussion and make a judgement after exactly 7 days: the page was about 134KB long already - that's a lot of debate to review, and when we also consider all the linked material which needed looked at, it's an awful lot of work for some poor soul. However, check the times of the nomination and closing. WP:AfD#How an AfD discussion is closed clearly states "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old...". After seven days, not "on the seventh day". Another 4 hours or so might not have made any difference, but in a case as contentious as this one, I think it especially important that proper procedure should have been observed.

I do try to assume good faith but I'll be honest with you Epeefleche, some of the behaviour I saw surrounding this AfD discussion did look to me more like a vendetta. Well done for standing your ground and defending your position with rational and intelligent arguments. There are those of us who appreciate that being right is sometimes more important than being on the winning team. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Greg/CMP--Where there's smoke, there's fire. See my discussion of the unusually close relationship at "Highly disconcerting: close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin" in the now-closed AN/I, which I've incorporated by reference into the just-started Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• This just gets worse and worse. Very disturbing. See the discussion as well now at the Rjanag Arbitration, which reflects that the closing admin was the one (in his first positive RfA vote) who recommended Rjanag for admin. And he has contacted Rjanag on his talk pg twice as much as any other editor on wikipedia. In reverse, the closing admin's talk page is Rjanag's 2nd-most frequent talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Wikipedia editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go fuck yourself", use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You fucking moron”.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

I apologize if my comment seems antagonistic, that wasn't my intention. I was just trying to clean up and didn't realize your plans to begin pages for those redlinks. Supertouch (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! When I approached the redlinks initially on the Johari page I thought I was noticing a trend - either users beginning pages for Islamic organizations or planning to do so via redlinks. These fledgling attempts would then be left to clutter up various pages for the apparent purpose of promoting that organization if not an entire ideology. I was simply trying to preempt that. Anyway, looks good - I was thinking of throwing in some headings unless you beat me to it? Supertouch (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would choose the word proficient to describe my Arabic. Supertouch (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, there is no difference as a proper name is definite regardless - `Abbas is the same as al-`Abbas. This point was discussed in the in Ibn `Aqil's explanation of Alfiyyah Ibn Malik. However, in the case of a name consisting of a possessive structure, i.e., `Abdur-Rahman, then this would change things if you said `Abd Rahman. (Nidal Hasan apparently had an e-mail address of Abduwali as discussed on "his" talk page.) That being said, convention may dictate - if a person simply prefers being referred to as az-Zubair as opposed to Zubair then perhaps that would have some bearing. Hope this was helpful. Supertouch (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the name al-Awlaqi is not proper name but a nisbah, or tribal ascription, it should be preceded by al-. This would be the difference between saying Amriki - an American - and al-Amriki - the American; this of course in the context of identifying a person and not describing them. So the difference between this and what I said previously, is that Zubair is a definite, proper name regardless and Awlaqi is only definite with the addition of al-. AlSayid (sp?) is a difficult example because it is both a noun - meaning mister - and a proper name (in this specific case it is a proper name, so perhaps this would apply - although this is an unusual name to me (Egyptians in general are unusual to me). From what I have seen though, it is always al-Sayyid (sp?) when used as a name, for example, al-Sayyid Sabiq an author for the Muslim Brotherhood- I have only seen it written that way, Supertouch (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anwar al-Awlaqi

I found this link to a religious, "Salafi" response to Awlaqi: The Salafee response to Anwar Al-Awlakee. While personally, it does not seem to be the best reference for Wikipedia, and may enter into a discussion of POV -it may actually improve the page to have "Islamic" commentary in light of the POV discussion - I thought the first page was interesting in in tying him to the Muslim Brotherhood, controversial, at best, Islamic organization. The rest of the article - I skimmed it very quickly, seems to an Islamic refutation of suicide bombings and not particularly relevant to the Awlaqi page. Since you seem to be "running" things at that page (most edits) I thought I would put the ball in your court. Supertouch (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tx. I've worked it in, being careful to indicate that it is simply an opinion, and whose.

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] your edit to Judaism

Hi, I want to make clear that I know your edit was good faith. Malik Shabbazz removed it and another user restored it and I removed it again. First - and parenthetically - you should know I do not fully agree with the wording. But second, and far more important, the reason Malik removed it and I removed it a second time is that there had been so much conflict on the page that it was protected, and when it was unprotected it was because we all agreed to reach consensus on the talk page before making substantive changes. So, if other editors express support for your addition, on the talk page, we can put it back in.

I explained my removal here and this is where I hope discussion of your proposal will occur. I hope you have time to read my comment and see why I disagree with the wording. It could just be that you and I disagree. Or is it possible that we could play with the wording so that you and I equally like it? Jayjg raised a question about sources, but otherwise seems not to object to what you wrote. I think it would be a good idea if a couple of other longstanding contributors to the page chimed in. But the key thing is just for there to be some discussion first. It is quite possible that people will agree to put what you wrote back in.

I see you recently made an edit further up ... given how many arguments have been raging on the talk page, I wonder if many people missed your edit. I could be wrong but I hope creating a whole section dedicated to discussion of your ocntribution will encourage more people to chime in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite frankly, given that I made the point, and most people (other than you and the the one or two editors you indicate, apparently) seemed to be focused on listening to themselves rather than others, I stopped looking at the page. I'll take another look when I get a chance. Generally speaking, your notions sound good, and I appreciate your moving the matter forward.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I frankly am surprised that other editors did not comment (whether positively ornegatively) on your line. My problem is with the use of the word faith. You may considerit s quibble. I genuinely would like to know whether my qualms make sense to you and if you see a way around them. I don't see any need to rush, I think some people get addicted to the instantaneousness of Wikipedia. If other people like your sentence there is no reason it cannot go back in. People really should be capable of thoughtful discussion. Some people are. So I do hope you will check out the section and comment perhaps - when you get a chance! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR, abuse of Twinkle, harassment of IP editor (EF update: Closed as Declined)

I have reported you at WP:AN3. ~YellowFives 13:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ANI Notification

Hello, Epeefleche. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• this edit does not meet WP:VAND.
• this edit does not meet WP:VAND.
• this edit, while not necessarily beneficial, does not meet WP:VAND.

Misunderstanding of the vandalism policy? Misuse of WP:TWINKLE? Both? Neither? Feel free to explain on WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing. I hope you will drop by to give your thoughts on the latest comments. Fram (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done so as you requested out of politeness, though I note that even half a string ago a number of editors had deemed it ridiculous.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I am glad that you have realised your mistakes and intend to learn from them! :) GiantSnowman 19:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Working Man's Barnstar for Inner Temple Library

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Well, That Was Embarrassing

I'm terribly sorry about that; I obviously wasn't paying enough attention!
--NBahn (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all my friend. It happens to the best of us. I do appreciate the note. I hope I wasn't unduly harsh in my evaluation of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your minor edit.
;-)
In regard to the present debate I fear that we will have to agree to disagree (With all of the utmost due respect, of course! If any any of my postings have been even the slightest bit uncivil, then I request that both you point out them to me and at the same time to please accept my humble apologies.). Thinking back about it, now, it seems to me that this last posting of mine was a little snarky. For that I apologize.
--NBahn (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. From your first note to me, I determined you were a good egg. (you might consider posting it to that discussion, so others can conclude the same). You'll note that in my comment responding to your post, I made no mention (snarky or otherwise) to your too-quick citing of non-RSs. I understand that was an honest mistake. We all make them. I'm trying to raise that AfD discussion out of the politics, btw, which I think are irrelevant, to a focus on whether the article meets the notablity criteria. If I'm swayed, I'll change or soften my vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario

Thanks for the message the other day regarding this page. The article looks great now, and I would vote keep, but seeing as the discussion is closed as keep, I guess it doesn't matter. Good work! PDCook (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a general thanks, you've edited about 30 of my articles in the past few days, doing general tidy-up and such; thought it deserved some recognition. Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: comments

I'm not exactly sure what all that is, but thank you for taking an interest in defending articles from forum raids. Hope to see you around. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I was wondering if you could explain this further [2]. You can just answer here as its easier for me to keep track. Fragma08 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. At this point, I don't know what edit that conversation related to. But the concept that "Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...")" is reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is my impression from much of what has been said and written, that religious edicts/opinions of scholars is reliable. The logic of unreliability fails immediately, as a persons own opinions and utterances (opinions) can not be defaming or unreliable (unless one assumes that person lies or/and wants to defame himself). So religious opinions are different altogether. What do you think? Fragma08 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I come out at the same place, if I understand you correctly. Essentially, the way I look at it is if a notable person rights in a paper of questionable RShood, or on their own website, they can be quoted. The bar has to be lower for items of that sort than they would be on items where the paper has to do a fact check to be sure it got it right.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My thought, exactly. But I have not been able to get through to people who are clearly controlled by their own bias i.e. editing articles of people or topics which they are directly or indirectly affiliated with or just reverting articles to a version which contains peacock words, is partly unsourced or include information not avliable to the public. Had it been something else, it'd be different. But with scholarly opinions, the unreliability of sources or defamation of living people makes no sense. Rather, the standards should be lowered. At the end of the day, it appears to be a bending/abuse of rules due to bias.Fragma08 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt more of that around than people like you and me are happy with. Hopefully if there are enough of us, in time we will prevail. But it can be a struggle. Happily, some of the most biased do things that leads to them being banned. If they are bad eggs, they often do things (e.g., socks, other sneakiness, wikihounding, otherwise tipping their hand that they are not honest/aboveboard) that bite them in the rear. But I understand your frustration.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is unfortunate that I can not even talk to fellow editors about general concerns without being stalked and hounded by other users. Somebody feels threatened clearly. I regret this had to happen on your talkpage and I agree with your opinion. This really puts one off of editing. Perhaps that is the objective and harrassment will do that to anybody.Fragma08 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take Fragma08's assertions with a pinch of salt here, unless you know the full details. They have been attempting to put a section into the article on 'opinions' that has no coverage in any other sources, bar the person's own website. They have been repeatedly asked why these opinions are any more notable than any of the thousands of others on the website (see [3]), which also have not been covered by RS. This has nothing to do with people wanting to 'protect' this particular person (I for one find his ideas repugnant), but rather trying to avoid an article constructed out of what one person thinks is notable information, but has not been discussed in any secondary sources. If there are concerns about some of the other content being sycophantic, then I suggest Fragma08 raises that on the talk page. They should however, stop shopping around various different venues, and editors, trying to drum up support. No one else has accepted that the attempted addition should stay, and Fragma08 has been battling on this particular article from the very moment they started on wikipedia. Quantpole (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears I have a stalker on my hands and would like to refer the stalker to wikipedia guidelines on hounding other wikipedias. I suggest one takes Quantpoles assertions with a pinch of salt, considering the reverts he has been making to the article [4] which reverted the article back to a partly unsourced version, containing invalid links deemed by wiki guidelines, and several not notable claims. It therefore appears that Quantpole has every interest in forcing through his own views into the article, and combining with his general needless confrontational and biased ways on wikipedia and now wikistalking, I find that appalling and repugnant. Pushing through lies such as "shopping around" is just dictatorial and disgusting. I am fully entitled to speak to fellow editors and I will not stop. My concerns have already been raised on the discussion page, which remain unaddressed showing bias. Any discussion pertaining to the article should happen there. Stop vandalizing other peoples talkpages and attacking people. Far too hypocritical to even be taken seriously. Fragma08 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• While I'm not sure if/when I'll have a chance to look at the substance of this dispute, I want to make clear that IMHO Fragma08 is certainly welcome to come to my talk page to ask me my views on a dispute he is having elsewhere. I'm fairly certain that, despite the appearance on its face, Quantpole did not mean to suggest otherwise when he commented above that Fragma08 "should ... stop shopping around various different ... editors, trying to drum up support." If I've misconstrued Quantpole's comments, I invite him to correct me.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if it appeared to be that way, I don't want to gag anyone....I guess what I was trying to say is that to my mind it's time to drop the stick. Obviously, you are welcome to disagree, but Fragma has been battling on this issue for about 9 months. Quantpole (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not been battling this "issue" for 9 months. The issue only arised due to bias last month. Falsely accusing other editors is very unacceptable of Quantpole. There is no stick to drop, as I am not here to discuss disputes. I did, however, find Epeefleche's cited edit [5]. of interest, as it relates to something which is a greyzone, The rest is irrelevant to the topic and disruptive to our initial communication. I will continue to discuss things of interest whereever and whenever I like. I think it is high time for Quantpole to stop the WP:HOUND and drop the stick. Thanks for the welcome, EpeeflecheFragma08 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CAIR

I closed the discussion since the move I think you wanted was not nominated. You wanted the article Council on American Islamic Relations moved, if I followed the discussion. You nominated CAIR to be moved. Feel free to make another nomination if my analysis is correct. Note that would be a multipart nomination since both Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR would need to be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I gather I didn't list it properly. What I would like to suggest be done, is that a serach for CAIR point to "Council on American Islamic Relations". Since, as evidenced, that is what most people searching for CAIR are looking for. And that then Council on American Islamic Relations have a hatnote pointing to a CAIR disambig pg. How would I suggest that? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Johari

This didn't seem particularly significant except that seems to defend more than few alleged/suspected terrorists. This is regarding the five Americans arrested in Pakistan: "From all of our interviews, there was no sign they were outwardly radicalized," said Imam Johari Abdul-Malik. Five Missing Americans Probed for Terror Links Perhaps you you can find some use for it... Supertouch (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm thinking its best to hold off on using it until we get more information one way or the other, which would to me seem to make it more newsworthy. Thanks for the head's up. BTW, can you tell if this fellow is the same as the Saudi fellow arrested for the murder of Richard T. Antoun? I'm thinking no. Thanks. BTW--you my be especially interested in this ... do you think that a fair translation?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ِAfter Googling his name in Arabic the only mention of his was posted in a forum-which of course is unacceptable by wikipedia standards- but just mention it: عبدالسلام بن صالح بن حبابه الغبيشي الزهراني

identifying his father as Salih who the imam of a masjid. http://www.zahran.org/inf/news-action-show-id-3927.htm If we can accept this as accurate then they are not the same - the alumni was the son of Muhammad. In this article http://www.alriyadh.com/2009/12/10/article480220.html Zahrani's brother Abd al-Rahman denied that the attack had any religious motivation and that his brother was much more secular than religious. Supertouch (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Wikipedia:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AE

Hi, Epeefleche, thanks for the comment. I suppose you see this as the natural course of things, to ask for a clarification and then ask for enforcement based on the clarification. I usually see it differently, that if the matter is clear enough to warrant enforcement then it shouldn't have needed to get clarification. It all depends, but generally Wikipedians ask, why do I need to punish this person right now? Unless there's a direct purpose, then it generally isn't done. Following this clarification, I think that attempting to add a punishment here isn't necessary. You may think that there need to be punishments so that people will continue to take sanctions seriously, but I think that's an overly simplistic (and as you can see from their responses, a bit insulting) way to deal with these editors at this point. There have actually been several requests for enforcement on this case; I think so far all of them have resulted only in warnings. I've complained that people seem to have had quite different impressions of what the topic ban meant, and have suggested that the remedy needed to be clarified. Nickh and Nishidani are certainly not wikilawyers, as they could easily point out that they did not vote, sought to limit the scope of their comments, and that the article was not directly in the area of conflict. They readily acknowledge that under their understanding of the topic ban, they should probably avoid the AfD. But of course under their understanding there are incidents where editors on the other side should have been sanctioned as well, and yet haven't been. My point, in sum, is that there have been significant problems with the enforcement of these sanctions, including the involvement of socks, which I'd hoped may be resolved following this clarification. No problem about the sock, as I assumed you had missed it. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ask for the clarification. I'm with the arbs on that -- I thought the issue so starkly clear, that a clarification was not at all necessary. But yes, I did see it as the natural course that if a clarification were requested, and the arb response were as resounding as it was here, and the arbs (as here) intimated that sanctions were appropriate, that (given that sanctions had to be meted out elsewhere) AE (which I've never before commented at, let alone brought) would be the natural next step. I checked with an admin on that procedural point, and received confirmation that AE would be the appropriate next step here.

The clarification didn't do anything to chill the editors' bad behavior. Without more, the ban-flouting editors can chuckle away as to how they flouted their bans to influence results in just the area they were banned from -- and nothing was done.

I'm not sure I can imagine a more flagrant, knowing, intentional flouting of a ban than what we saw here, with avowed intent to vary the results of the working of Wikipedia. Intent is generally difficult to divine. Here, it's not. Sanctions can dissuade editors from intentional flouting of the rules, with intent to disrupt the project. Here at least one editor has even agreed that this was his intent. And that sanctions are therefore appropriate. I agree with him on this.

I've not been involved with these editors before. And am not familiar with their other problem behavior. But apparently whatever has been done to this point has not dissuaded them from knowing ban violations, with the intent being to alter an AfD they knew they were not allowed to comment at. That's not good. Something different seems to be necessary to influence their behavior, because whatever has been done to this point clearly has not been sufficient. If there have been several requests for enforcement as you say, resulting in warnings, and in the wake of that the behavior I saw takes place, there is a problem. As with the sock, if editors can't be encouraged to change their behavior to accord with the project, ultimately a last step after all else has failed is to no longer afford them the right to contribute to the project (and thereby help the project by stripping it of disruptive editors).

As to your suggestion that they are not wikilawyers, that's less clear to me than to you. When an editor characterizes his AfD edits as Nishdani did at the Request for Clarification as a "spontaneous disconcertion", and says the AfD "made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes", while in fact he left his inappropriate comments up for 7 days, only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed, that suggests to me an opposite conclusion. And in fact some have made wikilawyering comments to suggest that their AfD contributions may not have been within their bans, which the arbs resoundingly rejected. Plus, the behavior by some of them on their talk pages subsequent to this AE being filed did little to assure me of their good behavior and civility. As to the remarks made with regard to other editors and their misconduct, I'm not familiar with them and they don't bear on the propriety of these intentional ban violations, though I do support all editors on both sides of this issue being held to the same standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And Nableezy's most recent comments here are classic wikilawyering -- albeit surprising, in the wake of the quite recent arb admonition against his engaging in just that sort of behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunately

There are people who think a bot welcome is rude. I would agree it's not ideal. In a recent discussion we (I ?) did talk about using a bot to create a list for the Welcoming Committee. Not sure exactly how that would work. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

[edit] AfD nomination of Punchball

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Punchball. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• An example of why some noms, who don't follow wp:before, should not have the right to nominate articles for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Their approach seemed to be, "I've never heard of it, so let's delete it." I'm ashamed to admit I had never heard of it either, but the first rule is to see if it's for real, and it is. I gather it's mostly a city sport, like stickball. Now we'll see if they consider guys like Koufax and Robinson and Gould to be notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i've checked the new version of the punchball article per your request, have changed my vote due to the noticeable improvement. Have raised an issue with some of the new citations. --Brunk500 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the nominator withdrew the AFD.
All it took to save it was to punch it up a bit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] KSM (band)

Hello! You were recently involved in an AfD discussion regarding the article KSM (band). I just updated the page and was hoping for some honest feedback. Note that I am not a fan or in any way connected to the subject, but I am rather new to Wikipedia and this is my first “blind” rewrite. Comments, criticism, and advice are all welcome. Of course, please do any additional editing to improve the article if you can. Thanks in advance. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah El-Faisal

I thought I would alert you to a less prominent version of Anwar al-Awlaqi: Abdullah el-Faisal. The article is well referenced but a mess. Supertouch (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tx. I gave it a quick look/copy edit. Have heard of him before. Will give it more time when I have a chance.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)