Jump to content

User talk:I. Khider

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, I. Khider, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are a few pages that you might find interesting and helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages (the discussion tab) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.

Don't be afraid of making mistakes, as all changes are kept, and problems can be easily reverted with the "history" tab of each page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Muslimgauze has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' (link(s): http://crab.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/live-series-2-the-london-ambulance-station/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, XLinkBot, however--I meticulously researched my source and believe the site in question vital for informational and accuracy purposes. I further qualified my usage of source by utilizing accepted MLA standards. -I. Khider
Hi.
That's just a robot comment above (an automated process that noticed a link to a wordpress.com site). I recommend you check out WP:Reliable sources in regards to the bot's message.
I've left a welcome template at the top of your talkpage (but new threads are generally started at the end of a page), I'll let you digest some of that before deluging you in more info ;)
I wish User:AlexOvShaolin (talk · contribs) was still around - he did most of the previous work at Muslimgauze and Bryn Jones discography, and could confer with you better, however, let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to be useful. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze

[edit]

Hello Quiddity, First, sorry if I am doing this incorrectly, I am still a bit of a Wikipedia virgin. Second, thanks for your outreach and offers of help. The Muslimgauze entry process, along with my entry skills, are works-in-progress. There are several things I want to cobble together for the entry, among them to dig out earlier material such as previous entries, pictures and images of live show posters. I am not sure why they were removed in the first place but I believe they should go up. Where would I look? Thanks and advance apologies for any protocol violations. I. Khider (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone told me years ago, you aren't a real Wikipedian until you've made 50 'mistakes'! There is far too much to read, so we try to assume good faith as a core practice :)
I've copied your message here, just to keep things in one place (there are various accepted practices for where to respond to talkpage messages. Some people reply in the original thread's location, some copy remarks back and forth. (Some people just ignore us entirely!)). I've put your talkpage on my 'watchlist', and will try to keep an eye on it for the next few months, so you can just reply (and ask questions) here if you like.
Regarding the pictures, that's covered by Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content. I'm not very familiar with the image policies and guidelines, but it is fairly strict. If I understand it correctly - for fair-use the image must be 'critically' discussed within the text. Cover art is not used in our discographies - only in articles about the item or its creator.
Always look to the Featured content (articles and lists, primarily) when seeking examples for guidance. Specifically Stereolab and anything from Wikipedia:Featured lists#Discographies.
Happy to help (especially people with good taste in culture ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quiddity,

Thanks again for your help. As Bryn's official biographer, I have access to A LOT of images relevant to the topic. Live show image footage, letters, articles, personal photos and the like. The book designer might not be able to include all and I think Wikipedia would be a good place to air them. When you say "critically discussed", how do you mean? I was thinking the images could be used to support claims. Such as if I say Jones played at a certain venue, then I have a photo of him playing there. If Jones claimed something in a letter, then I have a photo of the letter with his signature.Obviously I do not want to inundate--but I want to create maximum impact. Can you show me an example of an excellent bio entry on wikipedia? Thank you again.

Oh yeah, what does this mean "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits."--I was trying to undo some stuff that should be included and I still got that message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I. Khider (talk • contribs)

Oops, my first point was to the wrong explanation; fixed now. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've replied to your questions at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rambling reply at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks,

[edit]

In response to Quiddity's request on my talk page, I'd be happy to help you negotiate Wikipedia's image policies and procedures. Give my a few days and I'll get back to you, if that's cool. Best, Pinkville (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze, continued

[edit]

Salaam, and thanks for your courteous query about my edit. My main concern is the characterization of Jones' knowledge as "sophisticated." (Compared to whose?) His "knowledge" should be described in neutral terms, or not at all.

Parts of the passage are vague and could be misconstrued. "Muslimgauze references" are references to or about Muslimgauze rather than by him, as you seem to have meant. "Conflict regions" is non-specific. (It depends on the context provided in the following paragraph.)

It is important, when editing an article about someone you admire, not to let the text drift into fantalk or advocacy. I often have to struggle with this myself. (Just because there are always a few editors on WP with an axe to grind, that doesn't mean we are justified in pushing our own "correct" views. See: Wikipedia is not a battleground. I recommend it not because you have been "battling" — you've been very courteous — but because every active editor eventually runs into people who are battling, and it's good to be prepared. In fact, the whole WP:NOT policy has been very helpful to me.)

The best articles trust the readers to form their own judgments. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alarob,

Thanks for your point of view. However, my claims have sources and I can cite them. My question was, how would you like me to do so? If you dispute a claim I post with regards to Bryn Jones--tell me how you would like it substantiated. As his biographer, I did my homework. Dealing with the topics Jones was obsessed with is bound to raise ire. That said, his knowledge is sophisticated--if you go through Muslimgauze album, track list references and interview footage--you would surmise that indeed Jones has more knowledge than the average person about said conflict regions.

Let us take this one step at a time: The crux of (one of) your contentions are that you feel Jones did not have sophisticated knowledge. I now amended the script in question. My research points to the fact Bryn Jones did do a lot of research in order to make his references.

Will you work with me on how to cite my sources satisfactorily? |I. Khider (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Muslimgauze task force

[edit]

I have created this group, and announced its creation in the Musicians, Alternative music and Rock music WikiProjects. I doubt this will become a major, highly-populated WikiProject, but even if it only serves as a scratchpad for two or three Wikipedians, I will consider it successful.

You can join here. Discussion takes place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Muslimgauze task force; I'll make a shortcut for that when I have time to fuss over the details. Please feel free to invite anyone you consider helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome! Policies and guidelines

[edit]

Hi, welcome! I hope that you're getting the hang of Wikipedia. I can't tell from your previous posts whether you've looked at the Wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. (For example, the links which Quiddity gave in the first post at the top of this page.)

A quick summary of the quick summary Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments; original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; ... indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory."

"Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible ...."

Muslimgauze has to be a "neutral", "professional" encyclopedia article. It can quote opinions of notable people, but cannot contain any opinions of the people working on the article (unless quoting a professional published source.) All info must be cited to reliable, notable third parties. Wikipedia does not allow any original research to be used -- only materials which have been published in (more-or-less) "mainstream" sources. We also shouldn't have any articles which are basically a "fan site", nor any links which are basically here as advertising for another cite, a business, a book, etc.

You might want to delete every scientific and scholarly entry because they do not cite "mainstream sources" As we know, only Fox news, or any media conglomerate source tells the truthI. Khider (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly helpful -

Best wishes -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mysterious 'User',

Go quote your entry to yourself and sod off. If you can't reveal your identity or specify what exactly you see as objectionable then go vandalize someone else's entry.I. Khider (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes about the suitability of a source can be settled at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The gold standard is academic sources, but other sources are often acceptable. As for "mainstream" sources, Muslimgauze probably receives very little coverage in Rolling Stone magazine, so well-regarded alternative music publications are usable. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to I. Khider --
Hi. I'm trying to be both helpful and friendly. The reply that you made on my Talk page seems very unfriendly to me and I think would seem very unfriendly to almost any Wikipedia user.
----- One of Wikipedia's guidelines is "Assume good faith". WP:GOODFAITH
"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence."
Your hostile reply to me seems unfriendly, unneccesary, and frankly, likely to make you look bad to other Wikipedians.
----- You are concerned that I am using an anonymous ISP account rather than a named account. Wikipedia has always welcomed anonymous/ISP users.
You have made a named account (User:I. Khider). This is good.
I am not using a named account. This is not bad.
(Wikipedia:Why create an account?)
----- You wrote "go vandalize someone else's entry". It's extremely important to accept that no article on Wikipedia is "your" article or "my" article or anybody else's article. (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) Everything included in every Wikipedia article belongs to everyone and no one.
At the bottom of every edit window on Wikipedia is the reminder "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."
When people edit an article that you have worked on, they are probably trying in good faith to improve it. When people post here to your Talk page, they are probably trying in good faith to communicate with you.
It's considered very rude on Wikipedia to make accusations of "vandalism" without excellent reason. I have certainly never tried to vandalize anything on Wikipedia, either articles or Talk, and specifically including anything that pertains to you. (Wikipedia:Vandalism)
----- You wrote "You might want to delete every scientific and scholarly entry because they do not cite "mainstream sources" ". There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that need to be improved. This means that they need to be improved. If we point to any given article that could be improved, then it could be improved. The fact that there are 100,000 other articles that need to be improved doesn't affect that in any way. Nobody on Wikipedia can fix everything. We just try to do the best we can with what is in front of us. (Funny essay about this at WP:GOFISHING.)
----- You are trying to work on Wikipedia. This is good. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which have been developed over several years and through many, many thousands of discussions. Other Wikipedians will expect you to follow these policies and guidelines. It will be helpful to you if you are familiar with these policies and guidelines and follow them. If you don't follow them, you are just going to make trouble for yourself. I'm trying to help you to avoid making trouble for yourself. If you don't want to take advice intended as helpful, or if you want to be hostile to people who are trying to help you, that is of course your decision.
----- Perhaps you are angry because you don't like Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, or way of doing things. None of these policies, guidelines, or ways of doing things are mine: they are Wikipedia's. I don't honestly care whether you follow them or not. However if you choose not to follow them, you will be working against many thousands of other Wikipedia editors who do follow them, and who will expect you to follow them. Do what you want.
----- I have now wasted an hour or so of my time trying to be helpful to you, and you don't appear to appreciate it. Okay. Again, please remember that there are thousands and thousands of other Wikipedia editors who will expect you to do things "the Wikipedia way", and your Wikipedia life will be a lot easier and more pleasant if you do.
I say again: Hi, welcome, and best wishes.
I don't think that I can put it any more plainly than that.
Have a good day. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad is 'struggle', 'scholarly Jihad' is a 'scholarly struggle'

[edit]

Wikipedia admin, Annonymous user and interested parties,

The reason I disclose my name, location and contact information is to be held accountable for my words and deeds. This is important as it demonstrates sincerity, solidarity with truth and to speak out against oppressors with some semblance of credibility. I gladly make a personal attack against someone who does not have to worry about the consequences of his/her actions, who can proclaim good deeds but act contrary to them.

Based on my previous posts, you more or less know my position regarding Annonymous and work on the Muslimgauze entry. If I am guilty of anything, it is a poorly written entry and not using strong enough language against Annonymous whom I can safely call both my enemy and the enemy of Wikipedia. 'Enemy' is not a word I use lightly and I will proceed to substantiate this claim.

Quoting Annonymous:

“Muslimgauze has to be a "neutral", "professional" encyclopedia article. It can quote opinions of notable people, but cannot contain any opinions of the people working on the article (unless quoting a professional published source.) All info must be cited to reliable, notable third parties. Wikipedia does not allow any original research to be used -- only materials which have been published in (more-or-less) "mainstream" sources. We also shouldn't have any articles which are basically a "fan site", nor any links which are basically here as advertising for another cite, a business, a book,”

While ineptitude and ignorance can be excused and corrected, deliberate undermining and/or muzzling of the truth cannot. At a glance, Annonymous' assertion seems to be one of integrity until a closer read reveals. “All info must be cited to reliable, notable third parties. Wikipedia does not allow any original research to be used -- only materials which have been published in (more-or-less) "mainstream" sources.”

What is at stake here is not the Muslimgauze entry or Bryn Jones who, in the grand scheme of things, probably does not warrant more than a footnote in history—if that. What is at stake here is Annonymous' assertion that entries of value only have merit in so much as they cite 'mainstream sources', employ 'neutral tones' so that facts themselves are neutralized and allow remarks by 'notable persons' -whoever that is.

Let us consider the repercussions of Annonymous' assertion. I cannot overstate the tremendous damage following such an assertion would cause Wikipedia. Without exageration, I would place it on par with the Romans' burning the libraries of Alexandria or the mechanisms of Big Brother rewriting history and flushing facts down the memory hole. That is why I react to Annonymous the way I would meeting Beezlebub in person.

I am a small and independent publication enthusiast. That means I both read and collect zines and other independent print media. These sources can be important mediums for research on something like when an artist or musician passes away before s/he attains fame. Authors of these publications often do not write for monetary gain or social status. Writing and learning about a given topic is a reward in itself for these people. Often, what these authors lack in grammar, syntax, professionalism, slick layout, funding, etc., they make up in zeal for the topic. Consequently, independant works can surpass professional mainstream publications in information, accuracy, and intergrity. This is because ethusiasts are persuing 'a passion' rather than a professional journalist who is 'just-doing-a-job'. The fact professional journalim utilizes an awards system ( i.e. Pulitzer Prize) demonstrates gradations in quality exist. (Anyone heard of Stephen Glass and the New Republic?) That is not to say independent sources should not be questioned, but like mainstream sources—we must always apply viligilance and scrutiny to ascertain intergrity of information on both. Otherwise why do biographers/journalists use journal/diary entries and letters as source material? These are not mainstream sources. This is not to slam professional journalists but to show they are not the sole bastions of truth.

Now independent sources I cited feature interview footage I believe to be undoctored. This means interview transcripts accurately convey Bryn Jones' words and thoughts at the time. In fact, they are some of the best ways of determining Jones' beliefs, even more so than accounts by family members. Jones is also an example of death before fame so these publications are often all we have to go on. I have met some of the people behind these publications and can vouch for their sincerity, due dilligence and dedication to the truth. Because these publications are not Time, the New York Times, or Newsweek does not diminsh the accuracy. Another important detail is distinguishing between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary is where the subject is directly sourced, like an interview with Bryn Jones who is the topic of this entry. Regardless of how accomplished the interviewer is, it trumps the best secondary source written by someone like Gay Talese, Lewis Lapham or Tom Wolfe—journalists I respect and admire.

I submit to you by way of further example and with the utmost reverence The Diary of Anne Frank. The text, in origin, is not mainstream—but I firmly believe in the accuracy and integrity of the work. In reading the manuscript, one gets a true sense of what it is like to live under persecution. The fact that in its original form it is not a mainstream text does not diminish the truth, sincerity and authenticity in the slightest. If one were to do a Wikipedia entry on life in the ghetto under Nazi occupation, not to include these sources or a page of the diary would impoverish the entry. To use a more objective tone in this circumstance would be a disservice to truth. In fact, I would place Anne Frank's work above writings by the most accomplished journalist on the topic.

Out of sincerity and love for truth I allow that my entries in the Muslimgauze section be removed due to conflict of interest. I both have original research and stand to gain personally in an entry elelvated to feature status. That said, I have laid the groundwork for a more factually correct entry and shown where anyone can get access (who wishes to improve the entry) to source material. I wonder where Annonymous was while the entry was languishing with factual inaccuracies for several years. This absence discloses motives most eloquently.

In addition, it is folly to not allow direct links to articles posted on the official Muslimgauze site. With clearly marked exceptions, the posted articles do not reflect the views of the site maintainer. Some sources are mainstream (Village Voice), some are not—but neither detracts from the integrity of information. Often original text in original format is hard to come by and the site maintainer received permission from sources to post the articles for open scrutinty. If all information was treated with such due dilligence, humanity would have much to gain.

I am at odds with my collegues who chide my objections and am appalled at their lack of concern for this dangerously pivotal issue for Wikipedia. I am glad I do not have your sang froid in the face of outrageous claims of prohibiting non-mainstream sources and what is deliberately an attempt to 'white wash' history. Annonymous, despite your surface congenial overtures, I see you as a cancer to Wikipedia.

To anyone else—put aside my topic for a moment and apply Annonymous' claim to ANY entry where 'mainstream' and 'noted figures' are only allowed to make statements and treated as credible sources.I. Khider (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimgauze anonymous editors

[edit]

It's good to keep a cool head on this one. If one of these editors is a genuine vandal, seeing someone become angry at their actions may reward them. Of the two anons editing recently:

These IP addresses are on different continents, so they are not likely to be the same person. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgarde, please see above.I. Khider (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Ibrahim, I understand your concerns about the recent vandalism on Muslimgauze but it's a relatively minor matter and and can be handled via reversions with little difficulty. I don't think this particular page has the traffic or the vandalism problems to warrant anything more at this point. I understand that you feel strongly about informing people about Bryn's life and works; I think all of us who have been involved in editing the main article and the discography feel the same way. But your tone in replies here and on the Islamaphonia e-list has been fairly combative ("scholarly jihad"?) and it would be helpful if you took a more moderate tone, especially in light of Wikipedia's role as a place for encyclopedic information and not a place to eulogize a favorite artist. dil (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ibrahim is out of line--however I have been following the development of the site with interest. Let's first determine what he's mad at. I think it is the fact that most of the Muslimgauze entry might have to be deleted. His concerns are partially justified as we have yet to see whether the sources he used can be quoted at all. His sources are fanzines and independent zines or magazines, can those be allowed on Wikipedia? I also looked at the number of entries he made and it shows he put a lot of effort into it--I think it would be funny if it was all for nothing! How do we know if he is allowed to use fanzines and independent magazines? And "Jihad"? Sounds like terrorist talk to me! Maybe we should get rid of all non-mainstream sources he uses until we know whether they are acceptable.Xebche (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both CPdilkus and Xebche, please see aboveI. Khider (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to "Jihad is 'struggle', 'scholarly Jihad' is a 'scholarly struggle'"

[edit]

Reply to User:I. Khider's post "Jihad is 'struggle', 'scholarly Jihad' is a 'scholarly struggle'"

I. Khider - I wanted to reply to your post. I wasn't sure if it would be better to do so on your Talk page or on mine. I've done so here. My apologies if that was the wrong choice.

I've excerpted from your statements in order to reply to them. My apologies if so excerpting has distorted any of your points or if I've overlooked something that you consider important. I'll be happy to reply to any such problem if requested.

Your statements preceded with > and in quotes. My replies preceded with ---


I am very disturbed at your "shoot the messenger" reaction to my efforts to inform you about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. None of these are my policies or guidelines. I may not agree with or like them either. I was trying to help you out.

> "'scholarly Jihad' is a 'scholarly struggle'"

--- I strongly agree. However, we have responsibilities both to the ideals of scholarship and to the basic ideas of civil interaction with other people.

> "I gladly make a personal attack against someone who does not have to worry about the consequences of his/her actions, who can proclaim good deeds but act contrary to them."

--- I try very hard not to do this. I don't think that I have done this. "Making a personal attack" is explicitly prohibited on Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

> "If I am guilty of anything, it is a poorly written entry"

--- I don't think that you are "guilty" of making a "poorly written entry". Almost everything on Wikipedia could use minor or major improvement. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it's very easy to make these improvements.

> "Annonymous whom I can safely call both my enemy and the enemy of Wikipedia."

--- This type of language is both personally offensive and is probably in violation of Wikipedia's policies.

> "What is at stake here is Annonymous' assertion that entries of value only have merit in so much as they cite 'mainstream sources', employ 'neutral tones' so that facts themselves are neutralized and allow remarks by 'notable persons' -whoever that is. Let us consider the repercussions of Annonymous' assertion. I cannot overstate the tremendous damage following such an assertion would cause Wikipedia."

--- I. Khider, I cannot state this strongly enough: This is in fact the existing policy of Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with my opinions on the subject. I may not like Wikipedia's policies. I didn't make them. You may not like them. Nevertheless, they exist. Persons working on the Wikipedia are expected to follow its policies.

It is also possible that I'm wrong about this. However, again, my opinions don't matter. You shouldn't care at all what I think, believe, or say. You should care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as stated in various places. If I say, "Article titles should be in ALL CAPS", and Wikipedia's policies say otherwise, then please pay no attention to me.

I don't know anything about Muslimgauze. I haven't made any comments about the quality of any specific sources which may have been used in the article (because I don't know anything about them). I posted some info on Wikipedia's general policies on cites and sources. I didn't say, and don't know, what sources Wikipedia might consider "good" or "bad". I was only bringing the general issue to your attention.

> "That is why I react to Annonymous the way I would meeting Beezlebub in person."

--- Thanks a bunch. You have a rather strong reaction to someone who has been trying to help you, has been polite and civil throughout, and in any case, has been doing nothing worse than discussing policies for posting to an online encyclopedia. Am I really the ultimate stand-in for Beelzebub?

> "ethusiasts are persuing 'a passion'"

--- This is a very good thing. I support this very much. However, Wikipedia is not necessarily the correct place for it. Again: Not my rule. Wikipedia's rule. (Or, again - perhaps I'm wrong about this, in which case disregard what I say.)

> "Now independent sources I cited feature interview footage I believe to be undoctored. This means interview transcripts accurately convey Bryn Jones' words and thoughts at the time. In fact, they are some of the best ways of determining Jones' beliefs, even more so than accounts by family members."

--- I tend to agree with you about this. It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't permit some sources to be used. However, again, that's the policy, as far as I know.

> "Another important detail is distinguishing between primary sources and secondary sources. Primary is where the subject is directly sourced, like an interview with Bryn Jones who is the topic of this entry. Regardless of how accomplished the interviewer is, it trumps the best secondary source written by someone like Gay Talese, Lewis Lapham or Tom Wolfe—journalists I respect and admire."

--- I think that a great deal of our conversation is revolving around the use of the word "mainstream". I originally wrote "(more-or-less) 'mainstream' sources" in an attempt to indicate that I wasn't necessarily using this term in the strict dictionary sense. Perhaps I shouldn't have used this word. Please, by all means, substitute whatever term works for you. What I meant was "Wikipedia has policies about what sources should be used and which may not be used." I meant "mainstream" in the sense of "acceptable to Wikipedia". This is pretty straightforward: In creating articles on Wikipedia, we may use sources which are acceptable to Wikipedia, and we may not use sources which are not acceptable to Wikipedia. That is hardly surprising.

Again: Not my policies. Wikipedia's policies.

> "I wonder where Annonymous was while the entry was languishing with factual inaccuracies for several years. This absence discloses motives most eloquently."

--- Don't be silly. I was working on other Wikipedia articles and doing other things in real life. There are over six billion people in the world who haven't edited this article in the last few years. I hope that you don't consider them all "your enemy", "Beelzebub", or working from hidden bad motives. My "motives" were that I'd never heard of Muslimgauze.

I came to the article because I saw the notice which User:Edgarde posted to the Talk page of WikiProject Rock music. I thought, "Hm, I might learn something interesting from that article." I looked at the article. I made one link. I saw that you had been working on the article. I thought, "Hm, maybe I can help out this new guy to get oriented on Wikipedia." I posted some links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on your Talk page. The rest is history.

> "I am glad I do not have your sang froid in the face of outrageous claims of prohibiting non-mainstream sources and what is deliberately an attempt to 'white wash' history. Annonymous, despite your surface congenial overtures, I see you as a cancer to Wikipedia.

--- Again, thanks loads. Again, not my policies. Wikipedia's policies. I may not agree with them either.

I'm not especially interested in Muslimgauze. I have no information on the subject. I'd never heard the word before seeing Edgarde's post. As you saw from my post to Edgarde, I have no intention of working further on the Muslimgauze article. I'm not trying to bug you, I've been trying to help you.

I have been trying very hard to maintain my sang froid. You have been probably the rudest person that I've personally dealt with on Wikipedia, and with in my opinion very little justification.

You have in my opinion already violated a number of Wikipedia's policies on civil and polite interaction with other Wikipedia users, such that you could probably be sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators. I will not make any complaint to them at this point. However -- and again, I'm saying this to you trying to help out a new person in a friendly way -- in your future interactions on Wikipedia I urge you to moderate your uncivil tone - not everyone has a high level of sang froid, and you will quite rapidly cause problems for yourself.

We have both wasted a lot of time with this discussion. I am by no means your enemy, nor the enemy of scholarship or Wikipedia.

The time for "Hi" and "welcome" is probably past, but I say again, I wish you the best in editing Muslimgauze, in your other Wikipedia work, and in all your "real life" endeavors.

Since it bothers you to deal with an "anonymous", I will close by signing myself "Not Beezlebub". -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous,

It is easy to refute your claim and substantiate that your intentions are anything but helpful by focusing on your oft-repeated 'It's not me, it's Wikipedia.' If Wikipedia forbids non-mainstream sources, this is to their detriment and must be changed. Again, I cannot overstate the importance on including non-mainstream sources when embarking on the pursuit of knowledge or researching ANY given topic. Where would the discoveries of Copernicus be if scholars only accepted mainstream documentation as authoritative? What is at stake here is the question of validity of source citation and the very nature of information itself. If Anonymous--you truly care--rather than discredit the source citations of the entry you would confront whomever supports the destruction of knowledge. If the policy of Wikipedia is truly to only accept non-mainstream sources, you are the harbinger of one of the worst policies ever conceived.

It is both to my benefit and detriment that I am outraged and react with fury when someone deliberately sets fire to a library. Admittedly, I would probably be restrained and removed at such an outrage (the equivalent is happening here). If Wikipedia bans me, I would not object---nor would I change my stance here for anyone. What is infinitely more sacred than my pathetic little entry is to recognize the importance of and to include non-mainstream persons, to not neutralize statements so the truth is clouded, and to seek sources other than 'notables'. Then we are back on track for the pursuit of knowledge and not it's systematic destruction. I. Khider (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Khider: All policies and guidelines were developed to deal with specific problems, and to help define Wikipedia's endgoal (meta:Mission). As a gross generalization (extrapolatable to other topics): We don't allow unreliable sources, to prevent people from adding misinformation about things like aliens and magic and homeopathy. Please read through the intros at WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research to get a more balanced idea of why they exist. However, User:Xebche's suggestions for deleting information are quite erroneous and rudely put (Which I find frustrating, because his username is taken from my favourite movie, Dead Man).
As for user:201.37.230.43, s/he is quite correct. Editing anonymously is strongly protected (Wikipedia:Privacy policy). I'm editing anonymously!
There are all sorts of fascinating philosophical points touched upon, but this isn't the place (or time) to argue discuss them. Can we get back to writing about Bryn now? Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity et al,

It would be foolish to proceed with the entry while the possibility of anyone "more or less" reducing it to a stub because "mainstream sources" are not cited. Rather it would be wise to first establish the validity of said sources because it clearly is not so for some minds. A cursory glance through just about any encyclopedia reveals sources are cited based on pertinence to the topic and validity--not how "mainstream" they are. It would be wise to draw up a document on valid source citations that can hopefully be of use to other entries threatened with censurous minds. Nothing in-depth, just something obvious enough to bring home the absurdity of this situation and Annonymous' claim. Moreover, the personal attack is based purely on the odiousness of Annoymous' assertions as I have nothing else to go on. While personal attacks are reprehensible, they can be warranted against someone who wishes to justify destructive acts and then say it was done on behalf of the rules of Wikipedia. I. Khider (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As edg says above, "well-regarded alternative music publications are usable". The policy is thoroughly explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability - please read that.
Anything anyone is particularly concerned about can be discussed at the article's talkpage (Talk:Muslimgauze) or at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Please just ignore Xebche - his comments were unhelpful and generally unfounded. However, personal attacks are never warranted - you will lose the respect of people who agree with you if you stoop to insults or leap to hyperbole (See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks - these are policy too).
The only thing you need to be mindful of is the potential for WP:Conflict of interest in regards to the sources that you yourself have written - however, you have "declared your interest" (as that guideline suggests) at your talkpage and the article's talkpage, and have many eyes watching over your shoulder, so there should be no major problems there either.
See google:books search for many more sources. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I._Khider&oldid=265346993"