User talk:Calliopejen1/Archive 3

Gluten_sensitivity

We were editing (for errors) the GS page when you split it, you should have written something in the discussion page or looked at the history before splitting the page, if you want to split the page you should consult with the originating author so that we can best decide how the split should be done. Thanx. 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to see in the history. There is nothing there that suggests the article should not be split or suggests a certain way to split it, nor is there any discussion on the talk page about splitting the article into subsections... Now I do see that you made some changes about 20 minutes before I did the split. Hopefully you can continue to make changes on the subarticle just as you would to the main article. Normally on wikipedia it is fine to be bold and make changes without consulting the originating author. If you disagree with the way I split it, feel free to resplit it a different way and redirect my subarticle page accordingly. Calliopejen1 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is in a phase in which information is being added, but you can add your reasoning for making the split and we can discuss it in the discussion page first. I was in the process of teaching students and editing errors at the same time, when all of a sudden a large segment we were editing material disappeared without a trace, we had to hunt for several minutes to find that material. In addition the title of the subpage is way too long, so there should be some discussion about what the best title should be, therefore Wiki page titles do not change abruptly. Pages with references in them are difficult to edit, so that a idle period of 20 minutes should not be unusual in an edit.Pdeitiker 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. Calliopejen1 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Women and Islam

Could you please summarize the effects of your series of edits to that article? Arrow740 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically I have just been merging and rearranging things.

I have added no content from outside research. I have basically removed only extremely dubious content, self-contradictory content where it was impossible to tell which was right because both were unsourced, or excessive quotations (many of which I just moved into footnotes and didn't remove, and otherwise which I generally tried to summarize and incorporate.)

I have been trying to incorporate content from a bunch of random, semi-orphaned articles (many of which were developing parallel with and often diverging from the main article) into the main Women and Islam article, and then moving things into linked subpages or starting new subpages as appropriate. Any more questions, ask away. Calliopejen1 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your edits have been good. However please do not use partisan websites like www.submission.org as sources. Arrow740 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a very good edit. Arrow740 08:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to delete those as I see them. (I don't know which websites are partisan and which aren't, because I don't have too much backgruond in this.) I haven't incorporated any new sources though, so those must have been cites lurking in this or other articles already. Calliopejen1 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also appreciate your work on Women and Islam. However, where chunks of text have been removed, could you give your assurance that they are not being deleted wholesale? I suggest they be dumped to the talk page, section by titled section, so the info can be salvaged later if someone else (not me!) wants to do the work of finding sources, rewriting for neutrality, etc. Another, possibly more useful, alternative is to move those chunks of text to the hived-off articles. BrainyBabe 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, I haven't intended to delete any chunks of text when I was making my edits. If you look at my edit summaries they basically should all specify where I moved what I was taking out of the main article. (It's possible I slipped up here and there though in all the edits.) As a general matter, they were moved onto the subpages. I tried only to delete content outright where there were redundant parts from the merges, and where the quotation was pretty ridiculous (obviously the article can't just be selecting bits and pieces of the Qur'an to represent the whole picture, because that's scholars' job and not ours). I can think of at least a couple exceptions, once where a paragraph didn't make any sense and another time where there were two contradicting things, both unsourced, but they were specified in my edit summaries if you want to check it out. Calliopejen1

On the Female Genital Cutting article...

You commented: "(deleting unencyclopedic list -- if others want to add back a relevant bibliography, that would be more appropriate. at this point, i can't tell what's relevant and what isn't.)"

Rather than just deleting, why not do the work? If you can't do the work, why not just mark it on the page's talk page or mark it for cleanup? I'm not grinding an axe regarding this page (I have made only minor edits), but I see a lot of editors blindly implementing policy as if it were a command from God, rather than asking what would make the page better. Please seek to incorporate rather than blank...deleting large chunks of a page is tantamount to vandalism, regardless of your intentions. Afabbro 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it looks like every book or song that has ever mentioned female genital cutting is listed. It would be easier to start from scratch than to go through that list, but I don't have the energy personally to do so because I lack the expertise and the inclination. I continue to believe that no list is better than the list as it stands (largely made of irrelevant and tangentially related items), because I believe it actually detracts from the article rather than adds to it. Calliopejen1 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious demographics for Alaska

On seeing your edit summary about this for the Alaska article, I've just been working my little hiney trying to find that info. Best I can find thus far is at Adherents.com and at the Association of Religion Data Archives, but neither really matches what whoever-it-was put in there. Perhaps it came from some national or local pollster? Perhaps it was made up out of whole cloth? Well, it's close enough to the Adherents.com stuff that I don't think it's complete fabrication... but I will keep on looking, later on. Whatever I find I will first update in the new Demographics of Alaska article -- that page really needs some work anyway, there is so much more info about there about Alaska that would make the article far more valuable. I want to add, btw, that as I roam around the Alaska pages quite often, & often see your user name in the edit histories -- & whenever I do, I know I can count on reliable work. Keep it up! --Yksin 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Whipped Slave FP Candidate

Just wanted to let you know that I've uploaded a couple of new edits of the whipped slave image for consideration. They may help with the image quality discussion. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Submission

All you wanted to do is get that screenshot of the Submission screenshot out of the Criticism of the Qur'an article. This will not be allowed. The material is relevant to the article. Your summarization resulted in leaving out important details of the articles which was also inappropriate so I've reverted your change. Please dont do this again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying won't be allowed. I think the fair use claim is a rather weak for the non-free image, so I would keep it out. There are many other free images that could illustrate the same thing, such as the free image of Hirsan Ali (the film's writer) that is on her article page. I meant to do more than just take out the image, though. I thought my summary was useful, since there is no reason to detail the film's plot or do a detailed exegesis on the criticism page (when this info is already at the pages for the movie and the exegesis). What do you think was eliminated that should stay in? Calliopejen1 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Second note: Before, the "criticism" section was hardly a section for criticism at all, just a description of the relevant doctrine from the perspective of Islamic scholars. I think it should definitely be restructured to a criticism/response format, which is what I was trying to do. Calliopejen1 13:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of the film's content relating to the Quran should stay, because thats what the film is about. Its about Quran and abuse of women, thats why you have 3 or 4 verses being mentioned in the film. That image is thus highly relevant to the article. I'm checking your other humongous edits to these Islam related domenstic violence articles and seeing what you've done. What you're doing is reducing important details that should be left in the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to check through them all. I did not intend to eliminate any details, only move things to footnotes (where it wasn't necessary to list every scholar in the main text, just to say what their point was and group them together) or to shift them between articles. (I moved a lot of the exegesis to An-Nisa, 34 because it was overwhelming the Islam and domestic violence page and compromising neutrality.) You'll notice that I was the one who started the Islam and domestic violence article to begin with by collecting content spread across wikipedia, so it's not as though I'm trying to eliminate/hide things. Obviously, some sort of clean-up was direly needed, considering the page was literally a dump from about five different articles that largely covered the same ground. Calliopejen1 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you didn't just revert my changes related to the submission movie, you reverted all of them. Did you mean to do this? I stand by my changes (including those to the submission movie paragraph, because while it is criticism of Islam and domestic violence it had way too much room there, especially considering the volume of criticism by other authors). Maybe later we can engage another editor for a third opinion. Calliopejen1 13:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm checking your stuff more and can agree with some of your edits. It does look like its a cleanup job and thats good, but tell me why you put in the NPOV tag in this Islam and domestic violence article. Whats the nuetrailty issue? The author is only asking for additional information for abuse in Muslim countries, etc, right? How does that make the article less nuetral? About the COQ article, since you deleted the image, I just reverted to the original version for now. As I said the image should stay. If you want to revert me, go ahead but put back the image. Its highly relevant to the article or section, its being discussed nicely in the article and so it should stay. A non-free image can be used if it being discussed in the article, which is true in this case. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're really making some gigantic edits on these articles and they might be helpful but I'm not sure like the other people above that you're not trying to delete and whitewash or soften the information, but your clean up job does seem to be pretty good on first glance. I'm checking more. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you can see that I ended up working well with the editors above, even though they were worried too at first! :) Now that I look at it more, I'm fine with the image being included. However, I still think my changes to the text at Criticism of the Qur'an were good. I'll revert to my writing, with the image, and you can check it out and make sure I haven't left anything out you think needs to be on the criticism page. Also, I added the NPOV tag bc I worry that Domestic violence and Islam looks somewhat whitewashed--and the user on the talk page called the "whole first part simply a proIslamic flier." The intro to the article doesn't seem to deal with the fact that many, many people think domestic violence is a particular problem in Muslim countries, it just says in some countries it's bad and in others it's not. I think the lack of info on the reality of domestic violence itself compromises neutrality. (If you only cover one side of an issue thoroughly, the omission is certainly an NPOV violation.) Now that a good chunk of the exegesis has been kicked out to the other article, it's looking better, but I think it could use a bit more work (intro, as well as maybe explaining how sharia interacts with husbands' actions--see the scholarly article linked in the EL section) before the npov tag comes off. Calliopejen1 13:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

When you move a link like this to this, you should retain (or improve) the title of the link to say what the page says, its helpful so the reader can know what the link is about. Usually the URL's themselves dont give any info on what they're about. Anyway ok then, your edits seem good. Looks like everything is ok now that you put the image in the COQ back in. Yea, I woke up and looked at all these changes and seeing you reduce the article sizes to less than half so at first I was like what the crikey is going on. Thanks for the cleanups, this is usually an impossible task given the gunk build-up over time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOR/V policy

A random question for you that being new to wikipedia is bothering me: as an encyclopedia does wikipedia have room for first hand experience of current events and cultures as a source of information? How does it keep from only stating facts without also being able to comment on the common current interpretations? As an example, I was recently in Dubai and had a chance to visit their new Dubai mall which is under construction. It was common knowledge there that the workers were treated very poorly (even by Dubai standards) and the construction bosses had come up with a way to pay foreign laborers so little that they could barely afford to food and sheltor, much less for a trip home; if they complained they were fired and had to come back and grovel for a job at an even lower pay. I saw it happening, it was openly known and discussed, yet I doubt I could find much in the way of written material commenting on it. Is there a place for it in wikipedia then? What about cultural norms in a country like Pakistan? Unwritten rules of a culture are called that for a reason, so how is wikipedia to be anything but inaccurate in describing things if it ignores this reality? I really don't know the answer but was hoping you might share with me some of your thoughts. Gtadoc 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, wikipedia does not have room for that. I agree that it can be frustrating when something you know to be true cannot be included. I often try to write articles on fashion topics, which are nearly always difficult to source. Everyone who pays attention to trends knows that there was a revival of bell-bottom jeans in the 1990s, that blipster/prep-hop clothes influenced by Kanye West are on the rise in hip hop fashion, or that Chloe Sevigny started the latest Wayfarers fad, right? (Try finding a site that's not a blog that talks about any of these things.)

According to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This obviously makes the encyclopedia incomplete, to say the least, where certain facts have never been published about. However, I think that on the whole it makes for a better encyclopedia. If someone wants to include a statement like "Dubai workers at the new mall are treated very well," it can easily be removed by citing WP:V or WP:A. If you were allowed to introduce one true fact that was never published, fifty other people would stick in falsehoods that were never published. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before someone notices that workers are treated badly, and a newspaper covers it or Amnesty International or a similar group raises concerns, allowing the issue to be added to Wikipedia.

As far as cultural norms go, I guess it depends on their obscurity. Pakistan is probably at least a moderately well-studied country. In general, I think that a remarkable amount of anthropological research has been done and I find that JSTOR (or similar databases) can pull up articles on most such things I'm interested in. I suppose that WP:V means that wikipedia will never be more complete than JSTOR, but I think that's a fine trade-off for being able to eliminate (citing policy) Joe Blow's opinions on what Pakistani culture is like. Calliopejen1 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Calliopejnen: I really am so discouraged at your attitude for not helping me with my donations and contributions of images to my entries. You've ignored me. They've been deleted, and even though I asked you in good faith not to do it, you did it. Thank you very much for being so unconsiderate. I hope this action can be solved as soon as possible because I'm getting tired of contributing from my heart and no one seems to care, but Tony the Marine. I'm so sad this is happening, that I'm going to study and find out what is it with my contributions. I won't stop writing or donating my entries and images, but I won't either stop finding out what's behind everything here. There's something happening that I don't know, but sooner or later I'll find out. Thanks again. Bye. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 06:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Entre-Nos, I don't think any of your images have been deleted--I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't nominate any of your images for deletion, and all the images I thought had problems are still there (see User talk:Entre-Nos/imagecopyright). I unlinked a few images from the articles, so that we don't upset anyone else before the copyright issues are resolved. It is possible that another user nominated a few of your other images for deletion? I'm not sure. I was trying to help by explaining on your talk page what was wrong with your images--I wrote you lots of help and was not ignoring you! Some of the images may still need to be deleted eventually because they may violate wikipedia policies, but I continue to offer my help explaining wikipedia policies and changing your image tags so that we can keep as many as possible. Calliopejen1 06:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick sidenote: please remember to assume good faith on the part of other users as well. Calliopejen1 07:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Calliopejen: I'm sorry. It wasn't you. It was another user. I understand everything you say, and the procedures you've gone through. I apologize. Keep up with your good work. It was a misunderstanding from my part. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

image problems

Calliopejen1, how you doing? you are right Image:YoyoBoing.jpg and Image:Johnatendawayne.jpg images should be deleted. Notice that these images were posted in 2005 and 2006 before "©2007 Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular" copyrighted their material. The confussion comes about the "Fundación Nacional para la Cultura Popular" has a similar name to and can be confused with the "Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueňa" which is a PR governmental site and is PD. Tell you what, I'll delete these images (I really don't care much for them now) and if you run into anymore let me know and I'll do the same. That way we won't have to go through the deletion nomination process. Take care. Tony the Marine 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted them. Tony the Marine 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Claridad article pg2.jpg

That is a copy made by myself of the protion of the newspaper that talks about my numerous contributions in Wikipedia. The image of Emilio Esteves is a military image as stated by the tag and very old one at that. Is there any particular reason that you have decided to dedicate all of your energies towards me? Tony the Marine 02:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I drew the flags. Tony the Marine 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Calliopejen1 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We're cool (smile). Listen the monument image will go out, that for sure. Tony the Marine 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

• Image:Portofoto.gif Permission has been sent to the OTRS
• Image:Carnival mask.gif and Image:Santeria artifacts.gif come from http://americanhistory.si.edu/vidal/history.htm, which says that the images are copyrighted. - Fair use in accordance to: http://www.si.edu/copyright/
• Image:Jesus Colon.jpg - wrong tag, tag will be replaced Wil deleye others. Tony the Marine 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:IIUSfooter

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:IIUSfooter, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:IIUSfooter fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

per Template talk:IIUS

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:IIUSfooter, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Template:IIUSfooter itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Swan Lake

Thank you for your revisions to my "Swan Lake bible" - the Swan Lake article. If you need references and sources, just ask.

--Mrlopez2681 01:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fordham University

I applaud your interest in improving the article on Fordham University. I suggest you post your concerns about sections of the article reading like an adverstisement to the discussion page of the article first, and then label the sections that need improvement. The entire article, however, does not suffer from this problem, and should not be labeled in a way that imples that. Thanks. Shoreranger 14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job on O'Reilly crop

The new image looks great. Anynobody 09:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Gravel photos

Re: Image:Gravelcouple.JPG, Image:Graveldnc07.jpg, Image:Graveld.JPG -- I'm explaining Wikipedia's image policies to the Gravel campaign staff (currently working with their webmaster and head of IT). They are universally happy to see the photos on the site and I'm asking them for a formal license declaration. I'll update the article and images once I've gotten the response we need. Sylvar 15:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peru

Hello, thanks for your edits to the Peru article. I've written some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru, could you check them out please? Greetings, --Victor12 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the Peru article has improved a lot, in no small part thanks to your edits and suggestions. Could you check it again to see if it meets FA criteria? I've posted an update on the article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Greetings, --Victor12 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

E.T.

Considering I don't subscribe to Jstor, it would be most considerate of you to work at the article. It'd only be kind to help someone with resources as limited as I. Alientraveller 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what you can do first. I'm a suspicious old mule and am unsure of giving anyone access to my e-mail. Alientraveller 15:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my $0.02: You could have the intended themes in a stand-alone Themes section, then have the academic analysis in a "Critical interpretations" or "Academic interpretations" section. That's what I plan to do when I aim to bring a film article up for FA nomination (probably Fight Club (film) in my case). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work: and do try and include quotes within the main article. "Entertainment Weekly" is not a really good citation. Alientraveller 10:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Women and Islam

I respectfully draw your attention to the comments I have made there about cousin couples. BrainyBabe 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I Nominated WWII woman worker image as a featured picture candidate

I thought I should let you know because you nominated it for peer picture review, and I think it is of a good quality to be a featured picture. The nomination is here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/wwii woman worker :) --AutoGyro 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shardha Ram Phillauri, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

note re: fair use and copyright for record reviews

Thanks, I've been meaning to get around to that, I have finished editing the rest of them. =) --Thankyoubaby 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Barrier Reef

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thankyou so much for summarising the Environmental threats section of the Great Barrier Reef article properly. Malkinann 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and suggestion

Thanks for your help in tagging problem images for deletion! One point -- when fair use is asserted but the use doesn't satisfy our non-free content criteria, you should tag it as {{di-replaceable fair use}}, {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, {{Di-no fair use rationale}} or one of the other "Di" templates listed in Category:Image copyright tags (instead of tagging it for speedy deletion). Thanks again! -- But|seriously|folks  06:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. (Or, actually, already have. It seems I'm always the bad guy marking people's pictures for the trash...) Calliopejen1 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's largely thankless work, but it's the yang to the yin of chaos and it's critical to the project, so give yourself a pat on the back! -- But|seriously|folks  10:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of kunoichi in popular culture

List of kunoichi in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of kunoichi in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kunoichi in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of kunoichi in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jay32183 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jordachelogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jordachelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Calliopejen1

I'm currently neutral, requesting...er...something ;) Leave me a note if that something is done :D Giggy _U^CP 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Giggy _U^CP 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Adriana

A relative of mine took that Adriana's picture.

See you. Opinoso 12:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tourdefrance.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tourdefrance.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)