This user has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable time. As a result any requests made here may not be responded to. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else.
Thank you for your agreement to mediation. Would it be OK with you if I put in a request for mediation with you and I as parties? I hope others will join later, but I would like to get the process in motion. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will write something up, and I will let you review it before I submit the request. It will be a few hours, as I have other business I must take care of first. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
Boston: I'm very cross at you! This dispute resolution you requested ---with my name on it--- is not what you represented. This dispute resolution process should focus on any and all images of Muhowmud, not just the 'Maome' image you mentioned in your request. I suggest (demand!) that you edit the request to include the real issue here: the real issue is that some of us think images of Mohowmud should be included in the Article and others think no imges should be allowed. Before I accuse you of engaging in subterfuge or clever, sly manipulativeness, please respond to this grievous afront to our intelligence and good faith.DocEss16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not include "any and all" images because I don't have a dispute with you about any and all images, but a dispute with you regarding a particular image. --BostonMAtalk17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dispute with you in particular nor about any image in particular. In fact, I never even looked at that image you mention! The point here is to decide whether or not we are going to include images of Mohammud in the Mowhamed Article. Your micro-view of one little image is a waste of everyone's time. Let us settle this macro issue. Capiche?DocEss17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion has been about the Maome image. If you think it is a waste of time to discuss it, then by all means, avoid participating in the discussion. (However, please do not complain about the outcome, nor engage in reverts in contravention to the outcome.) If you are happy to let the matter drop, I will be happy to remove your name from the mediation list. I only included it because you stated your willingness to participate. If you have reconsidered, that is your right. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also interesting that you say you have never seen the image since it has been the subject of edit wars on Muhammad for some time, and in this comment you suggest we look at this web site, in which the image in question is the first image on the page. If it is true that you have not seen the image, than I would appreciate it if you didn't waste our time discussing an image for which you have self-confessed ignorance. --BostonMAtalk18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we planning to have one of these administrative interventions for every image that get added? You know that will happen - every time someone adds an image, there will be ample yapping on the talk page, reverts upon reverts and then eventually a request for some adjudication. Get real and get the thing done correctly. I demand to participate in THAT kind of discussion - piece-meal is a waste of time at best and diversionary at worst. And by the way - you said you'd let me reveiew the request before sending it, did you not?DocEss18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did say I would let you review the request. However, when I went to the request page, I realized that they only wanted a brief description. I apologize that I that I took what I thought to be appropriate action without running it by you first. With regard to your idea of solving "everything", why don't you write up a description of what you believe the issues are that require consensus. I'm sure that the mediator, should we get one, will wish to hear your point of view, and not merely my own. --BostonMAtalk18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right - I will do that. But a macro-approach is the only right thing to do, I am convinced. Think for a day about it, Boston, and I'm sure you'll agree. Let's get er all settled once and for all. Until tomarrow,....DocEss18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should spend more time on Islam articles and less time pestering atheists like Ttiotsw(though I do it too). That's not the way to go about it anyway. If there is no afterlife, then nothing matters because when you're dead, you're dead. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to consider things like love and family important; it is an objective fact that those things make us feel good. Arrow74018:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All he had to do was play along for ten seconds and it would have been over weeks ago. It was a simple little riddle that makes one think, that's all. Relax, max.DocEss18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at my recent suggestions at Talk:The Divine Comedy. If you have any disagreements with what I've said, I'm sure they can be hashed out there. The material you're adding is relevant to the article, but in its current form not relevant to the section to which you're adding it. I have explained on the talk page how you could give the Inferno passage more prominence in this section (you do realize that it's already mentioned twice in the article, both in the "Islamic Philosophy" section as "ironic" and in the Inferno summary?) in a way that one would expect to meet with the acceptance of a lot of editors. Wareh19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write it. I just put it back where it was. Perhaps you and I can put our heads together and improve it along the lines you sugest.DocEss19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)P.S. I especially like the picture.[reply]
Ok. There may be a misunderstanding. I think that you're not noticing that, after it was removed from the tail end of the section, it was reincorporated in the middle of the section:
This was particularly ironic, in light of the fact that in Canto XXVIII of the Inferno Dante consigned the Islamic supreme prophet Muhammad to the eighth circle of hell, as a "seminator di scandalo e di scisma" - a "sower of scandal and schism" - in line with then-current Catholic dogma regarding Islam, as evidenced by the title of the first Latin translation of the Qu'ran: Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete")
While I think the scholarly quality of this could be improved along the lines I've suggested, I think that, for now, this is a better provisional text than any other we have in the existing article history. So, pending improvement, surely it makes sense to keep the better out of the two redundant statements of fact?
Re-add the image if you want. My only objection is that the layout looks lousy on my browser setup. (It displays with the following section.) Perhaps place the image in smaller format higher up (near the text I've quoted)? Wareh19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be wasting so many words in two places... but when you fix the picture, please leave out the article text, and check a copy of the Inferno so that the image is placed by the right section of the Inferno summary. Ok, that's all, I'll cork my verbosity now, I swear! Wareh19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; I really would like to meet you sometime, although as I am in the UK and you are, I think, in the USA it's not going to happen. You say everything that I would like to say - although you never take my advice. And fair enough, why should you? Your system works for you. But I do miss Nemo on your Userpage.--Anthony.bradbury19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dearly miss my Nemo. They took him from me because I went tooooo far - I should have listened to your advice. I do now, though; I'm thuper nice, even to stubborn fools who can't see straight. They take me all wrong --- I'm just fiesty is all, and it hurts them that I'm right.DocEss21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It is funny. You should laugh. I laughed. Most people laughed. As for the rest of your commentary, it is not funny.DocEss19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no, the rest of my commentary was not funny. It was not intended to be funny. Claiming someone else's work as your own is not funny in this context. So I will ask you again, how did you create the image which you claimed to have created? --BostonMAtalk20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall just create the one reply and leave it here. Image is a copy vio - [1] - examples here and here. DocEss - it is pretty straight forward - Stop uploading works of other people claiming you created them when you didn't. Your userpage is a base for yourself and others related to wikipedia activities - it is not a personal webpage, and not a notice board to upload your "email funnies" to. Generally everyone is pretty relaxed about poeple's userpages - that relaxation, for me, heavily tightens when people start breaking the rules of this place by uploading copyvio images. Please stop - either put something useful on the page, or find some free content - This passed me by on my FlickrLickr travels, it will be uploaded to the commons at some point fairly soon, but it is cc-by and anyone can uploaded it if they wish. There was a whole category of funnies on the commons at one point, but I think it has dissapeared in the re-cat process. TheseTwo licences are commons compatible, and I don't doubt there are free funny pictures in there if you really want to display that on your userpage. SFC939420:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. Please let me first apologize for not answering promptly, I haven't logged on for some time. Yes, I have an ingrown nail on my big toe of my right foot. It began I think in April, about 3 months ago I went to the doctor because repeated bathroom surgery only provided relief for a few days and I was becoming concerned because it was discharging pus and was swollen even though it did not hurt much. Also I was on summer break from the university and I wanted to solve this before the beginning of the semester in August, since I walk a lot over here. The doctor drained my toe and proceded to clean it with alcohol then she injected lidocaine waited a few minutes for the effect and then got to work. She trimmed the side of my nail (right side) and removed some nail and debris, I did not feel any pain though I was bleeding and the bleeding certainly did not help because it interfered. Even though she trimmed the side of the nail, I felt that she did not go deep enought and that some nail fragments were still embedded on the flesh. She cleaned my toe again before covering it with bandages, she told me to remove the bandages after a few hours and advised me to wear open shoes for the next 7 days. She also prescribed me an antibiotic and painkillers. I did what she told me to the letter and I did see significant improvement but only to an extent because the swelling did not go down entirely. I began cheking my toe again to see if some nail was again embedded and I found some and either I cut it or I break it off with a nail filer, this I have done several times. Recently I began to notice a bit of swelling on the other side of the nail and as expected the nail was beginning to grow into the flesh on the other side, I tried to trim it with some degree of success, it is not discharging pus or blood but it is a bit swollen without pain. I am not sure what to expect, whether the nail with grow out and correct itself or if the condition will deteriorate. I have gone back to wearing open shoes and I clean my toe every night with alcohol, for the moment it is a bit swollen (on both sides) but it does not hurt or anything.
My question about the statement was about people needing to feel pain and pressure, in this regard I during the time I've been afflicted with this I was almost compulsively "working" on the nail, trying to lift it and find the embedded shard, etc. I was surprised by the statement because I thought it was just me behaving compulsively and I wanted to know the what and why's out of curiosity. Thank You very much for asking and being concerned. If you have any suggestions about this (or anything else) please do tell me. I can be reached over here (I'll check this account frequently) and my email is rebel.crusader@gmail.com or you can add me to MSN messenger with centerfrancisco@hotmail.com. Thanks again!!!
Oh you poor man. Suffering will not make you stronger, so stop messing with it, go to the podiatrist and do what he says. From what you said, it is almost inevitable that the other side of the nail will ingrow too - you must avoid that! Actually, the description above sounds eerily reminiscent of my brother's problem; he actually twice had temporary wedge resections (which you had, I see) and they inevitably failed. Bro's trouble was finally, happily, permanently and professionally solved after fourteen months (or some intolerable number) by having a partial permanent avulsion on both sides of his big toe. In other words, the nail was trimmed all the way back to the base and phenol was applied to kill the matrix so that it can never grow there again. I know it sounds all scary - nobody wants pieces removed - but the anxiety over a twenty-minute surgical procedure is nothing compared to the anxiety you must be prepared to face by trying to tough it out. And there won't be any permanent anxiety over the functionality or appearence: it's only a millimeter or so - you won't look like a freak and it will never ingrow again. It is the solution and I'll wager that's what the pody says to do. Good luck, man - I beg you, please stop the suffering, stop the bathroom surgery (what if your whole foot gets infected?!) and stop worrying - it's easily solved.DocEss16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got it sorted. I borrowed (more or less) your archive graphic, which rather appealed to me.
p.s. looking at the communication above, do you make house calls?--Anthony.bradbury21:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I really loved the Nemo page, in which I suspect we may be a minority of two, I cannot help liking, gender notwithstanding, your new userpage, which absolutely reflects the vast mass of my clinical experience. Please answer on my talk page - having been totally archived it looks naked and lost.--Anthony.bradbury23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please if it does not violate your freedom of speech then it is better to write 'Muhammad' or other more comonly used spelling. Mistakes are okay but one should not do that otherwise. It is a polite request. --- ابراهيم17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said: I've seen so many spellings that they're all 'common' to me. IAccordingly, I will continue to spell it various ways chosen randomly because I refuse to devote any effort to it.DocEss16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Civil which is official policy. Taunting is classified as one of the more serious breaches of civility. While an occasional misspelling might have been a mistake, it is no longer possible to assume that your misspellings of the name Muhammad are errors made in good faith. Rather, your misspellings hav the appearance of taunts, and I will interpret them as such. --BostonMAtalk17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stop it. There is no one accepted way of spelling. How do you spell Moscow? How do you spell Munich? How do you spell Pyong-Yang? There are all kinds of spellings.DocEss17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have reverted my userpage. He doesn't seem happy, does he? I think the difference is that you just wind people up in discussion, while I go out and deliberately target vandals.--Anthony.bradbury18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, that is by no means the worst that I've had thrown at me. For entertainment, spend a few minutes looking through the previous vandalisms that have come my way. After all these years I am professionally hardened, as I assume you are. I tend to feel the urge, restrained so far, to suggest psychotherapy to them. Do you think they would welcome the suggestion?--Anthony.bradbury18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has been blocked indefinitely. Sometimes I feel that Wiki use me to drive thes people out of the woodwork into the open air where they can be eliminated. And if it works for wiki it works for me; but it's hard work sometimes.--Anthony.bradbury20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no space for levity? Good gracious! Give me a break. I can't read it and I'm not alone. I only read English. I can decipher the odd non-English letter. I can't read squiggles.DocEss17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is your choice to make an effort to understand. But note that the type of behavior that resulted in several blocks for incivility, will only result in more blocks. ≈ jossi ≈t • @19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Johnson, that celebrated author, once wrote about two brothers, whose surname escapes me. One was a very serious-minded fellow and became a senior bishop; one was frivolous and was passed over for everything. Johnson reports the frivolous brother as saying "I have been held down by my levity, while my brother has risen because of his gravity". Just thought you'd like to know.--Anthony.bradbury19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Profound and enlightening. Despite the wisdom imparted by that parable, I shall continue for now to lighten these proceedings in Wiki until the over-sensitive, reactionary, tantrum-prone whiners stop cryin and learn to have a giggle and get over there own self importance(s?), etcetera.DocEss22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no - Looks like all Greek letters are out too as they are not English. DocEss - can you please advise what is your new letter for PI seeing that π is not an English symbol. I pity the person who uses that in their signature. Ttiotsw04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Titisow--- that argument is nonsense. All Greek letters are 'out' insofar as they are used to spell words which I can't read. But Greek letters, like pi, are part of of the English lexicon insofar as they are used in specific contexts, like pi in math. Spelling out some sentence or a person's name using Greek letters doesn't help the vast majority of readers in Wiki's English pages. Be sensible, please.DocEss22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke DocEss. I think someone told me to lighten up so I've taken that on board. I hate to think what would happen if you were Italian and someone used 'j','k','w', 'x' or 'y' in their name on the Italian Wikipedia pages - yukky foreign letters !. One moment..... I think I hear the unicode pixies singing hi ho, 2-bites, hi ho, 2-bites, off to work we go, 2-bites...Ttiotsw02:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had my userpage vandalised 30 times, and my usertalk page twice. I am going to be out of the countrey for about a week, and have asked two admin friends to keep an eye on my pages. Could I ask you, who I am also starting to think of as a friend, to keep an eye on my user and talk pages and revert vandalism if it occurs? I would be most grateful. Kiss.--Anthony.bradbury21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing un-civil. It is agaisnt policy to edit talk page comments. Don't force me to be a whining little snitch, which I am loathe to do.DocEss17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which cases? Also, I read that link. Accordingly, his editing of my talk page commentary is certainly against policy and is not justified by the clause you qouted becuse it is "non-official policy." Notwithstanding, I still don't know what Boston or you consider a personal attack in the relevant comment. I deduce you're referring to my use of the word Islammi?DocEss18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you carefully re-read WP:NPA, that says that a personal attack is Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.≈ jossi ≈t • @18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked several times for violating WP:NPA and for conducting discussions in a non-civil manner. Listen to fellow editors about what they are telling you about your talk-page behavioe. Don't do it again, unless you do not care about your editing privileges that much.
I'd like to know: Where in the name of God's green Earth do you think there's an insult? I followed the link and despite my best efforts I cannot find any evidence of a personal attack. Are you suggesting, users BostonMA and Jossi, that we not refer to any group of individuals because this violates WP:NPA? I think not. I think (given the tone of this talk page) that this is an effort by the pair of you to harass a member who doesn't agree with you. Very disappointing.GreatMizuti09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Mitz. I feel so picked on. Oversensitivity is the new earmark of the oncoming clash of civilisations, I think. Ya know, there's even a user who goes by the name Islami! Personal attack? Yaaaaah.DocEss18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're five-nine, 24-36-24, naturally blonde collars and cuffs, easily lured by charm and wit, and FEMALE, I don't want any kisses, missus.DocEss17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well: it is your rejoinder to my Statement in the Mohammud-mediation-dealy. I wrote: "...to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine)." You responded (in revised terms after you were asked to do so, but the meaning is the same): "I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission."
Then I wrote to you: "Boston, you've not only gone beyond your mandate, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I'd like to scornfully snub attempts at religious-based censorship; I did NOT say I wish to scron the sensitivities of others. Those two things are entirely differnet and your mis-characteristaion of my very-clear words is unfair." Now you've moved this to my talk page (and I can guess the reason) challenging me to summarise all this, all this which is readily apparent; ok I did. Now respond please.
Let me get this clear. You would like me to remove the statement that reads:
I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission.
Your obfuscation of the real issue is disengenuous; I'm rapidly losing respect for you. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to scornfully snub vandalism, which is done instantly, agressively, mercilessly? DocEss17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement isn't about scornfully snubbing vandalism, it is about scornfully snubbing the sensitivities of others. I presume that most readers of Wikipedia are not vandals. --BostonMAtalk18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell it out for ya: I never said I wish to scornfully snub anyone's sensitivities. Should I spell it out in crayon?DocEss18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as far as I am aware, that you never stated that you wish to scornfully snub anyone's sensitives. What would you like me to do about that? --BostonMAtalk18:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course I never did. So why do you keep writing about "scorning others's sensitivities" when such a thing was never suggested?DocEss18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about "scorning others' sensitivities", because I don't believe it is part of Wikipeidia's mission to scorn the sensitivities of others. Some comments and edits by some editors seem to me to be intended to provoke reactions, and at times to scorn the sensitivites of others. I think that is not what Wikipedia is all about. --BostonMAtalk18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well so what? You're stating the obvious. Actually, you're just attempting to circumvent the need to admit a mistake. I never claimed we should scorn other's sensitivities; I claimed we should scorn attampts at religious-based censorship; you jumped all over that instantly and ran with it, and you did it without thinking.DocEss18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that I misquoted you by changing the text of my comment. However, if you would like, I will acknowledge it again. Is there anything else? --BostonMAtalk18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, pardon me if this doesn't help, but I have to say something. I'm on the same side as you. All I was asking was for you to sign above, again, to alay Boston's fears, no matter how silly you think they are. If Boston is being silly in his way of going about things, fine; but antagonizing him is only going to make the mediation fail. To be blunt, I'm not sure that you're not disrupting the process in exactly the same way you accuse him of doing. Patstuart(talk)(contribs)18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DocEss, some of your comments given in a demanding tone such as Be a man are coming very close to incivility. While I do not think you have made a grevious violation of the civility policy, I can see this escalating in the future.
I agree it is frustrating to have the mediation held back by disagreement, but right now civility is more important than normal. Please avoid using demanding tones during mediation, as it is not productive.
OK. I was not implying he was not a man; I was advising him to be a man. In any event, I will conduct my affairs in the manner you suggest. And by the way, I'm offended by almost nothing.DocEss20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologise about my earlier, intendedly friendly, comment. I had no wish to offend you.
I have just, admittedly belatedly, looked at the PETA page, and found to my vast surprise that you did not figure on the talk page. As someone who agrees with me that animals have no rights except those granted them by law, I was sure that you would be there. But you are not. Surely you have not grown tired of courting controversy? If you do have a go, I will support you.--Anthony.bradbury19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found their intracability frustrating to the point that we irritated the heck out of each other and I get in trouble because half of those whiny little bunny-huggers have more power than me and I get banned. I have decided to let others soften up the radicals for a while before I return with renewed vigour. I'll have a go, alright, but only after I eat enough furry and cute little critters to foam up my blood enough.DocEss19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have at it. You could start by showing them that any belief system that disallows any and all uses of animals is by definition a radical one. When someone starts to argue about the meaning of a word I look it up in the dictionary and quote same. Ga'head, look up radical and let em read it. They are radicals, pure and simple, and their position is bollocks.DocEss19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that our ethical and logical position is the same (i.e. I'm on your side - somebody has to be) and given that I have been making these points to a generally non-responsive, if not comatose, and certainly immovable audience for about forty years, I do know how to do it! If you can tell me, however, how to convince a monomaniac self-righteous prick that he is wrong, then tell me now.
Friendly word, gentlemen. When you are talking about other editors, even on the relative 'safety' of your talk page, please use civil language. Suggesting you will purposely "wind up" other Wikipedians is poor form and is liable to lead to a blocking for disruptive editing should you end up in a conflict. Believe it or not, I hold similar philosophical views to you both (and go one further, not only do I personally eat and wear animals, but I experiment on them too). However, if you want to make a change, you have to work within the system. This conversation will not help your cause. Rockpocket04:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many friendly warnings have been given. You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈t • @05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend DocEss my signature says Ibrahim in arbic, you can also call me ALM or ALM_scientist or Ibrahim. If I change my signature for you then would your start spelling Muhammad as "Muhammad". If you will then I will change my signature to English. Deal?? I am not trying to infulence anyone. I just wanted to state him my position as I was confused after reading some comments of him on the mediation page that if he is really sure that what is my position. I will from now on will try to post only in Muhammad picture mediation page. Happy ? :) --- ابراهيم18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an English language website, so please spell things in English. Secondly, I spell Mohammud like I was taught my whole life and it is a perfectly acceptable spelling. So, since your baragiaing position is so weak that you have nothing of value to offer, no deal. Third, if you're not trying to influence anyone, why are you here?DocEss19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned several times already. Unless you want your editing privileges temporarily suspended., please address fellow editors with respect and civility, and not as you have done here. ≈ jossi ≈t • @19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I concur with Jossi. As I'm certain Ibrahim is not signing his username in Arabic to antagonize you, I'm not sure why you are antagonizing him over it. I don't appreciate your kibitzing on my Talk page about comments other editors are leaving for me; frankly, it's just making my job harder. Since the direction I've chosen to guide the mediation has not immediately addressed the concerns of Ibrahim and some others, he felt the need to express that to me personally. I assure you that I remain unbiased and neutral, and that his concerns will be addressed along with everyone else's. Let's dispense with the meta-discussion and get back to solving the problem at hand, shall we? --Aguerriero (talk)19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All is fine with the world again. N.B. I'm not antgonizing anyone - I can't read Arabic and he's not the only one who uses a non-English signature. Agguerriero: I have never doubted your objectivity and I have full confidence in you judicial abilities.DocEss19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he's got a good point, if the point of a signature is to tell us which editor actually made the edit then it would be helpful if the people doing the reading could actually discern who is editing it. Moreover, I believe user Jossi's opening comment on the topic to be a threat, given the way of this place I'm sure that's not allowed.GreatMizuti11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you do not consider this to be a personal attack. It is borderline, probably closer to incivility than an outright personal attack, but it was more my intention to defend Jossi's warning than it was to draw more attention to you. To say it another way, I was not trying to pick on you, but defend Jossi from the GreatMizuti's statment the warning was not allowed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DocEss, it seems clear that you have decided to leave wikipedia. If you ever check back, please accept my good wishes, and my hope that all goes well with you.--Anthony.bradbury11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Image:Mckmd.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Mckmd.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Gustave dore.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
