User talk:Altetendekrabbe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RSN board

I do not think you can call it stalking if shrike posts on the RSN board. he has edited it before[1] Regarding the journal, "11 chapters which make up this volume - with the exception of Chapter 4, appearing here for the first time - were published over the last five years or so in the Middle East Quarterly" Rethinking the Middle East Routledge. However Higher Education In The Gulf: Problems and Prospects University of Exeter Press (1998) says "The Middle East Quarterly is a new venture that approaches the subject from a conservative American slant" So it is probably OK with attribution. Especially as it gets About 28,300 hits on Google books. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

if you look at his previous edits you'll understand that he is stalking. the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore.-- altetendekrabbe  18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now's a good time to back away from ANI - Shrike is shooting himself in the foot; don't shoot your own argument down - it's gaining momentum, and if you chip in too much, you'll spoil it dangerouspanda 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to offer the same advice. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

obvious sock

[2] Of who? I actually agree with that edit BTW, it probably would help reduce the editwarring on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

check his first edit, [3]. just another variation of the edits of "npov-enforcer", [4]. the sources are clear: this movement *is* anti-islamic and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR

Hello You made two reverts restoring tags that were recently removed and removing Hudson.Please revert you last edit--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

i self-reverted anyway, but i don't think my last edit was violation of 1 rr. however, i am assuming good faith.-- altetendekrabbe  09:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.If you not sure you can ask admin .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BY

Hi, I agree. This is precisely why I added Griffith and removed Sifaoui. I see someone has reinserted Sifaoui but he is not an academic, and is extremely controversial, being accused of forgeries. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 22:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I completely agree with you. BY has a very bad reputation in the academic. The article is clearly non neutral and does not reflect mainstream view about BY. About Sifaoui, I doubt he should be mentioned: some years ago he was a strong supporter of BY... and Sifaoui is not an a camedic but avery controversial figure with no academic reputation. I let you modify the article, I won't do it. Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with Schwartz 2006. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know en-two.iwiki.icu's criteria and Mohamed Sifaoui enough to say if M.S. is a reliable source here. As far as I know, M.S. is not a lot more than a journalist. There are several pages of the book that are devoted to BY, and those pages are one of the few critic pages toward BY published in a french language book until now. Not very important, I guess. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't accuse you of removing Sifaoui, don't worry about that. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Its forbidden to WP:CANVASS] other editors with similar POV to edit on you behalf I suggest that you remove you last message to user:Roscelese--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

er, what? canvassing? edit on my behalf? what r u talking about?-- altetendekrabbe  18:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You asked other editors that have same view to participate in editing the same article--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

er, what? did you actually read what i wrote? take it to an administrative board if you dare.-- altetendekrabbe  18:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I discussion on User:Shrike

Hi Altetendekrabbe! I noticed that you retracted a comment you made in this discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard. So that the discussion is clear to any parties that may have not been following thus far, could I persuade you strike your comment out rather than leave it removed entirely? As it stands some of the comments that follow on from yours are very confusing. Thanks! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, i'll strike out comments from now on. not used to do that but i'll be more careful in the future. thanks for your advice.-- altetendekrabbe  06:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Altetendekrabbe. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Here Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

The lead has to be rewritten as it doesn't summarise the article. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Hopefully this will help stop some of the pov editing. It really must clearly show upfront the views of mainstream Muslims and its legal status in some countries. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, i'll participate when i get some spare time. however, the first thing that has to be done is to semi-protect the page. too much tendentious ip-activity going on right now.-- altetendekrabbe  21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)