User talk:BrandonYusufToropov

Archive1

"Hey, does User:BrandonYusufToropov reserve the right to delete, without explanation, material on his talk page that he, in his sole, exclusive, and perhaps even arbitrary judgment determines to be disrespectful or inappropriate?"

Your book

Re your inquiry,[1] I'd be happy to share my personal perspectives on the subjects you've written about, but prefer to do so by e-mail. Not that I have anything particularly controversial to say, but as I prefer that others keep their views separate from their editing, I feel obliged to do so myself.Proabivouac 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro -- yes, that would be fine. Eager to hear what you have to say. Yusuf.Toropov@gmail.com. Peace, BYT 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust article

You appear to have weighed in on issues with The Holocaust's article before, can you weigh in on the use of the word 'slaughter,' as seen here? —Parhamr 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

I see you have listed this for FAC twice. I would like to get this to FA too. I am putting all the refs in proper format now, removing dead links and mark them as citation needed. Then I'll find any needed refs that I can. Then I plan to rework the article, including getting most if not all refs out of the lead. A good lead needs few if any refs. Then I'll do final FAC checks. I've gotten nine articles to FA status. Let me know if you'd like to help. Respond here please, I have a watch on your page now.Rlevse 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rlevse -- and for all the good work on the article. The article is an important one. If I recall correctly, people did want the refs out of the lead ... let me know what I can do to help. BYT

Let me finish with the ref cleanup. Right now, could you find valid citations for all the "Citation needed" tags and work on that one item on the "Todo" list on the talk page? Thanks for helping.Rlevse 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. BYT 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed or deleted all "Citation needed" tags. Steel showdown with Supreme Court is next on my list. Thanks again for the help. BYT 10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we'll just keep plugging away until it's ready for FA.Rlevse 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

HST status

Okay, here's where we are at and the next steps, basically, the article is too long: 1) the lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article, it needs trimmed and made a summary 2) the TOC is long, see if it can be shortened 3) copyedit, avoid all those parens, make prose smoother 4) wikilink full dates, like August 04, 2007 5) every section and all but the smallest paragraphs need refs. Best to use the ones we already have if they apply

We need to cut about 10-15k out of it, if we have to we can make subarticles, but see what you can do on the above steps first. Use Gerald R. Ford as a guide, it's an FA.

Also, look at the first two FAC failures and see if anything still applies. Did you notice I objected on the first two runs-;) Rlevse 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC?Rlevse 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the note suggesting the race relations and KKK material is out of place? BYT 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great, and I think it's ready for nom. Thanks for all your hard work. BYT 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a few more people to look it over. Hoary would like a bit more time. I'm currently planning to nom it on Sat, 11 Aug. Rlevse 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoary wants more time. I think we should wait now until he thinks it's ready.Rlevse 10:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Valid references"

If you don't think this is a partisan religious source, then you're terribly mistaken. Arrow740 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

This[2] is an unfortunate edit summary. In general it works better to just describe your edit, and use the talk page for dialog. And even at that, it's just an editing disagreement, not a conspiracy against you. It's also odd to complain of being reverted while yourself reverting over unrelated edits that only corrected mistakes in the interwiki linking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Tom. My apologies. BYT 14:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's a difficult area to work in. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Duping this exhange with Proabivouac and Arrow for my own archives

Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad (From BYT to User:Proabivouac:)

I really had expected more of you.

The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.

Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.

On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, thank you for your message. Of course I understand what the mediation would be generally about; to pretend otherwise would indeed be disingenuous. That does not, however, answer what is disputed. Specifically, what will (or won't) be disputed after the regular process of talk page discussion has taken its course. You say there has been a dispute involving me since July 20. Whatever it is, it hasn't involved you since July 25, when you quit the talk page. I've attempted to discuss your last edit, and you didn't respond. Other people are discussing things there that hadn't even been brought up last week. What do you think about them? We don't know. What input could you have offered during this time? We don't know. As for what version of the passage I'd support, that, too has changed, not due to inconsistency of principle, but because new materials have been added to the mix of proposed inclusions, new arguments have been offered, etc. I don't see that we're at a point where we can say we've hit the proverbial brick wall. If and when we have - and presumably at that time, what is disputed will be much clearer - then naturally I'd agree to mediation. But at this moment, there is an active discussion on talk and I see no reason to abandon it, or to conduct our conversation in two places. If there is a broad consensus to move the talk page discussions to the mediation page, then naturally I'll follow, for the same reason (i.e. if you can bring everyone else on board, you can count me among them.) I hope that I've addressed your concerns.Proabivouac 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. Will you be saying, one way or the other, whether you will take actually part in the mediation I've requested? (Aminz has agreed to do so.) Or will you be, as it were, waiting for the clock to expire? These are fair (and concise) questions that deserve, I think, responses that are equally direct. BYT 20:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it strikes me as premature, because there is still an active and non-redundant discussion underway on talk. If there is consensus among the talk page participants to move this discussion to the mediation page, then, naturally, I'll follow.

Now for another direct question: why won't you participate on the regular talk page?Proabivouac 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like playing out the clock to me. (That's just a personal observation, mind you.)

I am not participating on the talk page just now because I believe there is an organized, obstructionist effort from someone (I do not know who) that has as its aim the prevention of actual, collaborative editing on this paragraph.

I was so hoping to work with you in a cooperative way, Pro. If you ever decide you're up for it, try actually placing a draft of something on my talk page. That wouldn't break any principles of yours, would it? BYT 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This content dispute has become quite dramatic. Arrow740 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:RFM Muhammad

Hi BYT,

I hope you are fine and everything is going well with you. Thanks for helping with the dispute on Muhammad article. There are some undiscussed fundamental questions regarding the presentation of the story (e.g. How significant is the whole story in Muhammad's life, and how much space should be dedicated to it? A sentence? A line? A paragraph?).

Regardless of the story, Sura Al-Najm is a nice one. I read the commentary of this Sura from Tafsir al-Mizan(this is the one I like, but there are many other good ones as well). First thing I noticed was that the Arabic words sometimes can not be accurately translated into one English word (but rather should be translated into a phrase) and thus the available English translations do not faithfully present that. Verses 7-17 are interesting! It is an interesting exercise to figure out which pronoun refers to which person. For me, it was like those story books in which nothing becomes clear until the last point and the person you guess should be guilty turns out to be innocent :) Anyways, the context of these verses and the following ones(all having the same rythm) are not in anyway becoming close to a "satanic verses" theme; the text aims conveying information on a different issue.

Cheers, --Aminz 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is inappropriate, Aminz. Please send him an e-mail instead next time. Welch writes that this surah has been revised and contains later interpolations (Hawting, page 54). Arrow740 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can not see this comment of mine has anything to do with you Arrow nor do I remember I've invited you to comment here Arrow. --Aminz 07:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't remember it because you didn't have to invite me, this is a public space meant for aiding collaborative work on this encyclopedia, which your post does not do. If you want your thoughts to remain private, send an e-mail next time. Arrow740 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, considering responses like this, i'm starting to feel that future productive talk page discussion on this issue won't be likely. i'd like to participate in mediation, if i am welcome. ITAQALLAH 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the satanic verses issue was resolved, as you recently reverted to one of my compromise attempts. Arrow740 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

there are problems with the version i reverted to, i just disliked the previous version more. ITAQALLAH 21:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with it. I guess this is a sign that it is a compromise. Arrow740 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your question re Islamofascism

I really don't know. Though I am irked by the double standards at work here – Islamofascism, New antisemitism, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and so on – I am inclined to let them be for now. I don't like scare quotes and weaselly disclaimers in titles. But I guess it's a matter of choosing your battles, and I am more concerned about the subtle ways in which POV is pushed into content (Sabra and Shatila massacre is a particularly appalling example) than about the relatively obvious ways it betrays itself in article titles.

If you're asking me whether Islamofascism should exist in the first place, my answer is yes. My only criteria in this respect is service to the reader. If it's something you hear about, you should be able to find out more about it on Wikipedia.--G-Dett 15:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi BYT, I originally wrote the following on the Israeli apartheid talk page, then decided to move it here:

"Islamofascism" is similar in some respects in that it's a lightening-rod word for a lot of people, but it's very different because most who use it don't pursue an extended comparison between Islamism and Italian fascism (the original fascism). It may simply be that "fascism," like "ethnic cleansing," has come further along in becoming a generic political term than "apartheid," or it may be that those who speak of "Israeli apartheid" see more of a point-by-point similarity than those who speak of "Islamofascism," but figuring out which it is really beside the point. What matters is that secondary sources don't really talk about "the Islamofascism analogy." Or do they? If they do, then there's a case for treating it as such. But anyway we're talking about this article here. I thought we agreed there shouldn't be linkage lest we join those who have violated WP:POINT in pursuit of "system-wide NPOV."

I decided that given the heightened tensions on that page, it might make more sense to discuss this separately between you and me. I respect your position on "Islamofascism," in fact if I understand it right I agree with it. It may in fact be that it's "Israeli apartheid" where you and I part ways...At any rate, all the best,--G-Dett 00:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I do not believe that articles about political epithets are in most cases encyclopedic. Fascism and Apartheid are the names the practitioners themselves gave to their systems, while the first one is very conventional used to describe similar systems of the 20th century. I don't believe anyone would describe their own system as "Islamofascism," or that the analogy is the conventional term for political Islamism of any variety. At least, they are POV forks of Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamism with more prejudicial titles.Proabivouac 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Parens

Please stop putting parens in articles. My ol college English prof said if it's important enough to mention, don't minimalized it with parens. Tks.Rlevse 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(Roger, Houston.) :) BYT 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tks-;) Rlevse 14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Reguarding your recent comment, it may be better if you post on the talk page from now on, instead of on the main page. That is where most people made their statements.--Sefringle^Talk 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving this for my records

Say…

Say, Bless sins, three people have nominated me for adminship. Supposing I accepted one of these days, would you trust me with the tools? Are there concerns you would have which I could address? Because we've disagreed a lot, you seem like a better person to ask than someone with whom I've never been in editorial conflict.Proabivouac 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Pro: By that logic, you should also be asking me.
• But that might mean addressing directly questions about why you a) tampered with my userpage without first posting a note on my talk page about the changes you wanted to make, why you b) violated WP:3RR and then talked your way out of being blocked for it on Kaaba, where you were fixated on inserting an image of the Prophet, and why you c) refused to work with me to generate a consensus draft at Muhammad on disputed text, ducked questions there, and refused, via the silent treatment, mediation on the resulting logjam.
• If you (or your buddies Matt57 or Arrow740) ever do want to talk about any of these things (as in, you know, maintain a continuous dialogue) why not drop me a line? BYT 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't ask you because, in my experience, you are perpetually nurturing grievances and looking for various ways to leverage most any conversation back to your talking points. a) Telling other users they'll burn in Hell is deeply uncivil - even if you feel you're doing them a favor by warning them - and uses Wikipedia as a soapbox. b) I hardly had to "talk my way" out of anything - the IP had been blocked for vandalism. c) I'm always open to mediation where we know what is to be mediated, and where it seems productive. We've discussed all of this before, and the answers haven't changed. As for e-mail, I'd wanted to talk about your book, definitely not depictions of Muhammad or how disappointing it was to you that I wasn't brought to wikijustice for restoring them.Proabivouac 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Back to square one, then, and the test here would be whether or not you actually answer this question, as opposed to vanishing again into the troposphere.
• If I were to see something I didn't like on someone's userpage, I wouldn't change it unilaterally, but rather leave a note on the talk page so as to initiate a discussion about it.
• Looking back on what happened, Pro, do you think perhaps you and I might have gotten off to a better start if you'd followed that approach? BYT 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we would have. In an ideal wikiworld, it shouldn't have been necessary - removing inflammatory userspace material helps everyone, especially their posters - but I've come to accept that significant portions of the community expect this point of wikietiquette to be followed, and that you'll get pushback if you don't make the attempt. I'd now guess that you'd have taken it down eventually if asked, so that would have been the better approach.

I'll invite you to recall that this was part of a broader conversation about the general atmosphere around these parts. There was a time when many userpages challenged, ridiculed or insulted the Islamic religion. That time has passed, largely because of the efforts of FayssalF, which I'm happy to have supported - although you're certainly welcome to blame it all on me.Proabivouac 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you've "come to expect" about points of wikietiquette does not relieve you of the responsibility of actually observing it while interacting with users whose views on the proper usage of religious scripture might differ from yours.

• If you'd asked, you'd have found me quite amenable to changing it. Next time, don't steamroller me, please.

• Perhaps at some point you'll see fit to actually apologize for tampering with my userpage, an action that was unjustified.

• So, by the way, were these four reverts of yours at Kaaba:

• 1st revert: 07:18, 10 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:27, 10 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:44, 10 July 2007
• 4th revert: 10:34, 10 July 2007

• ... which reverts addressed, not vandalism, as you claim, but the deletion of specific content (namely, a disputed image) in accordance with a discussion that was taking place on the Talk page at the time. [3] Yes, the (new) user was in violation of 3RR, too. Yes, you had hundreds more edits of experience than he did, and yes, you should have known better. Perhaps at some point you'll see fit to accept some accountability here, as well.
• Given your demonstrated record of acrimony and intolerance on topics of interest to Muslim editors, and of ignoring people who disagree with you, I shouldn't be at all surprised if you chose instead to glide gently into the troposphere once again. BYT 20:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you want from me at this point.Proabivouac 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology for tampering with my userpage without discussion beforehand, and an acknowledgment that you unwittingly violated WP:3RR at Kaaba. Then let's move on and (who knows) maybe get some good work done together. BYT 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, you're asking the wrong person: it was Karl Meier who removed it.21:14, 20 April 2007 I am the one who left a message on your talk page.07:19, 21 April 2007Proabivouac 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I stand corrected. And my second point?BYT 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No trouble. Generally, it's probably not to mull over old grievances anyhow, but for Karl Meier's actions, you may want to see Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content. People disagree about what is offensive, extremely offensive, etc. (and the precise wording of this policy varies over time,) some people find claims about being a "sockpuppet of Allah" (per now-banned DavidYork71, which I removed) extremely offensive, others not so offensive. It doesn't matter, really; the point is that the material does nothing to improve the project, so any downsides are unmitigated losses. I understand why you feel he'd committed a breach of etiquette, but arguing about it is sort of a waste of time IMO.

On Kaaba, I'd reported the anon at WP:AIV,[4], which should at least show you that I considered that I was reverting vandalism (as shown in my edit summaries.) The responding administrator agreed. WP:3RR isn't supposed to be WP:AN/GOTCHA!, as I've said on numerous occasions - for example, when (unsuccesfully) defending Itaqallah against a vexatious report and unjust block.[5][6][7] Even so, I'd self-reverted.11:10, 10 July 2007 - as in Itaqallah's case, you never know how those reports will turn out; some are mishandled. I find the glee with which some treat their wikiopponents' blocks depressing. Some are well-earned and necessary, obviously, but the point of the noticeboard is to maintain order by encouraging discussion and curbing edit-warring. Encouraging anons to blank ad infinitum (including blanking the entire page [8]) or opportunistically punishing established editors for rolling it back doesn't serve that purpose, but undermines it. If editors are proceding in a lawful manner and engaging in meaningful discussion, there's generally no reason to block them.Proabivouac 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Proceeding in a lawful manner, by my lights, doesn't include reverting four times within 24 hours. You acknowledged as much when you self-reverted. I'm not entirely certain why you're continuing to tiptoe around the question here.
• It seems to me it's possible you were simply eager to get that image back in, and that you disagreed with the tactics of the editor who was trying to take it out. I don't blame, you, by the way. I disagreed with those tactics, too, but in the case of your fourth revert, you claimed vandalism, and that's simply not appropriate on content disputes where a discussion is in process.
• My question is a direct one. Should you have made the fourth revert, or shouldn't you? BYT 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have made the fourth revert, because that provided a pretext for ALM to file a vexatious report (the second time he'd done so: the first one was remarkably similar to the one which got Itaqallah popped.) Accordingly, I'd self-reverted to avoid any problems; it's not an acknowledgment of wikiguilt, just a recognition that the noticeboard doesn't always produce the expected results. It depends on who is responding.Proabivouac 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the dialogue on this. We have different perceptions of events, but I suppose we should get used to that. BYT 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

References

The Scouting project keeps a handy list of cites ready to copy and paste at WP:S-CIT. Have a great day! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will use these, Godwilling. BYT 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I use this several times a day, and sharing is good. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

The initial RfM was on whether or not to say the event happened. You stopped trying to compromise or even edit the article, preferring to post negative statements about me at the mediation page as your explanation of why I, the most active person in the conversation and the one with the most sources at his disposal, should not be included. While you were busy with that, we compromised and no longer stated it was historical. You continued to insist on "mediation," though you had not noticed this. Then itaqallah (a sometimes quite reasonable editor who shares your POV on many issues) agreed to a compromise version I had written, instating it himself. Even Aminz let it go from that point on. Now you say that in order to edit, I have to agree to mediation, when I have been actively brokering compromises and explaining my reasoning with multiple scholarly sources since the beginning? All you have done is editorialize on that article. I have not inserted my own POV at all, which I could easily do as Rodinson expresses it. What forbearance have you shown? You called the verses "enigmatic" and included a post-900 Islamic argument against historicity, when there are multiple stronger arguments for historicity that I have not included. Who is inserting his POV? You are. Arrow740 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

see "a sometimes quite reasonable editor... even"--Aminz 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's reaching for it, Aminz.Proabivouac 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow -- are you willing to go into mediation over what this paragraph should look like, or not? BYT 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, the first step remains to discuss things on talk. Really, it's not just me; these are the rules: WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved You've introduced material we've never seen before, and your only comment was to tell Arrow740 he had no business editing the page, because he didn't agree to meditation.Proabivouac 10:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, you lose a lot of credibility when you continue to attribute positions to people which aren't true. i didn't "agree" to the "compromise version" you had written, i made that quite clear (on this very page, no less, as well as the article talk page). ITAQALLAH 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i also do not see why the basis for mediation is being questioned. we had masses of discussion (sometimes circular), a RfC, and yet more discussion - all centering around how we should go about expressing this incident. there was no resolution to that- disingenuous claims of acceptance aside- and the failed mediation request stated that explicitly. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By instituting my compromise yourself in place of another, later attempt, you showed that you can live with it. That's the whole point of a compromise. The current version is short and to the point, while not asserting that the event happened and including a view of the matter discounted by reliable secondary sources. It seems like it should be acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. Arrow740 05:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss BYT's recent edits on the section he titled Talk:Muhammad#User:Arrow740, you are now reinserting your POV to a disputed passage you have refused to enter mediation on. It's the first I've seen of this particular text, to which I strongly object, as it strays from encyclopedic and neutral tone, with the effect of baffling readers rather than informing them: "It is said that according to this alleged story, some believe the so-called "Satanic verses" can be argued to have made vague and unclear references to mysterious cranes which some consider may or may not have represented Meccan goddesses." (A parody, yes, and my fault for that.)Proabivouac 21:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, I've left commentary on your last version on Talk:Muhammad. Perhaps there is some way to address your concerns without resorting to this brand of writing.Proabivouac 02:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. We did talk. We did RFC. It's clear where this is going. Just a straight answer: Are people going to engage in mediation or not? BYT 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, your only comment to the talk page for many weeks has been to falsely tell Arrow740 that he has no business editing the article. Per WP:DR#First step: Talk to the other parties involved, I'm trying to talk to you on Talk:Muhammad. Is the issue to be mediated the presence or absence of sneeringly skeptical unencyclopedic spin? Here I am fairly confident that Aminz and Itaqallah as well as Arrow740 will agree with me, as will most any mediator or arbitrator. That's why it's so important to outline what's to be mediated: a mediation on this particular question is a foregone conclusion and a waste of time. I understand that you don't believe the incident occurred, and that you don't want the article to give the impression that it might have occurred, but we just don't write like this in mainspace. It's expressly prohibited by WP:WTA and WP:NPOV.Proabivouac 10:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page shows this has been under discussion since July 26. (I'm in there too, plenty -- go check -- and although I'm plenty flattered, I'm not sure why you think the discussion doesn't exist when I'm not actually posting on the talk page.)

Anyway, about the whole "how on earth do we know what's in dispute" thing. I've got an idea. You frame an initial draft of the mediation sentence as you'd like it to appear right here on this page, I'll offer my comments, and that way we'll work together on it, and we'll eventually both be clear on it. Then we can present it to others and see what they think. Are you up for building sandcastles, or just stomping on them?

By the way (and for the record) this is where it always lands, Pro. I ask you directly for help in coming up with a compromise draft of something that you and I can both stand behind, and you levitate up to the troposphere again, to confer with who knows what otherworldly forces. BYT 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)