I've removed two copyrighted images from your userpage. Copyrighted images are used in articles under a 'fair-use' claim, unfortunately, under wp policy, fairuse claims cannot be extended to userspace. See WP:FUC for details. --Docask?10:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - interesting chap! Given the other Francis Charterises (the Earls of Wemyss) I have put him back as the Colonel... - ALoan(Talk)19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added the {{POV}} tag again. Last time you added this, you did not explain why. I expect to see a rationale for adding the tag on the article talk page without delay, say by mid-day today, or I will remove the tag. David | Talk10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better for someone else to take a look at it now that I've asked David to remove the protection. I'll wait for a bit to see what the response is. It probably should be protected as I see what looks like 3RR violations, and it would be better to protect than to start blocking, but the question now is whose version to protect on. SlimVirgin(talk)14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, what are the origins and who is the copyright holder who has irrevocably released all rights to the two new images you've added to the Islamophobia article? Netscott15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see well if you're not inclined to provide such information then I'll be sure to tag them for deletion due to rights concerns, etc. Netscott15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much like how you expressed good faith concerns over the MANIFESTO article before, I too have my own concerning these images. Are you surprised? Netscott15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll be sure to take the necessary steps to ensure that these new images do not remain on Wikipedia under their current licensing tags. Netscott15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dislike is a serious mischaracterization of my feelings on this matter. Regardless, it appears that a fellow editor concurs with my tagging. Netscott15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Islamophobiaevil.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Zzyzx11(Talk)15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone beat me by a few seconds - I was going to object to prod as well. Here's what my edit summary would have been: "object to prod. term is, article is not. Should have read talk page before prodding." Cheers. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:RIsalmophobia.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Bro, you wanted to mail me something before, but i couldnt fix my mail. Im curious about what you wanted to say... --Striver11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPGMe relaxing...Request for Adminship
Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, HighwayRainbow Sneakers
Hi there, The Islam template is used in all Islam related articles and it carries an image of the mosque, if you take a close look at the other religion templates they all carry an icon that actually symbolizes the particular religion. The question is what symbolizes Islam? As a muslim you would agree that we cannot Idolize any symbol as sacred as it would be Shirk. So the next question is what kind of icon would correctly represent Islam and Muslims? It is undoubtedly the Shahada, because without it we wouldn't be muslims. So I have suggested to change the template image from a masjid to a Masjid with the Shahada in it. In order to have the image in the template I need build some consense, could you kindly visit the talk page (Template_talk:Islam) and make your suggestion, lets have the template change so it will correctly represent Islam. (You do not have to support it if you dont like it). thanks in advance. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in your editing on this article is that it frequently falls afoul of the above guidelines. The Avoid neologisms guidelines are in place toward NPOV ends. Netscott08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but my good faith reasoning for the AfD was due to the simple fact that the Wikipedia is becoming the defacto primary source for the defining the term which is very counter to WP:NOR. This truth is further evidenced by this link. The way that the article stands now after your latest edit on it doesn't maintain Wikipedia's neutrality from it because of the article's actual use of the term which Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is particularly clear about not doing. Netscott08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enforcing it but it is perfectly logical for editors like myself (particularly when dealing with a neologism like "islamophobia") to be citing it in my efforts to maintain neutrality on its use and the article about it. Netscott09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know the the insinuating you're doing that I might be racist/islamophobic really reaks of mean-spiritedness. You must absolutely be aware of the numerouspositive beneficial (towards NPOV ends) edits that I've made in terms of Islam related subjects. Don't you ask yourself why a person might do that? Netscott09:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're meaning a page for the acutal resolution process. Yes, that sounds good... I'm still wondering about my questions just above here. Netscott09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your calling User:Karl Meierracist based upon the sole evidence of one link is not fair and additionally is completely out of accord with WP:NPA. I 100% agree with you about that particular link but do you honestly think it is fair to automatically refer to someone by the very derogatory and incriminatory term "racist" based solely upon that?... Regardless even if you were right in your accusations (which again I think is highly, highly doubtful) Wikipedia specifically prohibits editors from using such terminology when discussing other editors. Netscott10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not yet filed... I am about to though... what with the 3RR report, your talk page and Karl's talk page.. I've been just a tad busy. Getting to it now. Netscott10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we need to agree on what the dispute actually consists of. My contention is that actual utilization of the term islamophobia on Wikipedia needs to be avoided including on the very article about it. Please explain your view here. Netscott11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Well, I disagree. I believe while in general that contention is a good one when dealing with neologisms, as Islamophobia has entered the mainstream, to such a degree that various governments have set up methods of combatting it, it shuld be utilised. --Irishpunktom\talk11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good I just wanted to be clear on that... this in indeed a very big difference on both our parts and without dispute resolution I'm not quite sure how we could come to a compromise about it as to me this is fundamental difference of view. Netscott11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four options presented here is there one that seems to make more sense to you than the others? I'm thinking mediation. Netscott13:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the yellow card has been thrown and the ref is reviewing the footage. Any way that you can be pushed into dispute resolution any faster? In the interim, comments like this should be avoided. I know that you're firm in your belief, but it is possible to be right and be blocked at the same time. - brenneman{L}12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, that wasn't strong enough. "Quit it or else." There, that's better. I recomend that you avoid all mention of he-who-shall-not-be named outside of dispute resolution and Netscott's talk, and that you be circumspect there. An attack is in the eye of the beholder, and we must err on the side of caution. There is nothing to be gained in the short term from banging on about this, so, um, "Quit it or else." - brenneman{L}13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --Irishpunktom\talk16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. B'fhéidir go mbeidh WP:3O nó WP:RFC in ann cabhrú libh. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, going over some articles that I observe, I noticed an attempted move made on your part for the article Islamic extremist terrorism. You may be surprised to know but counter to my previous way of thinking, I'm now actually inclined to agree with you on your move. I would sooner vote for Islamic extremist militancy though. To me this makes sense in the same way that the title September 11, 2001 attacks makes sense. What is funny is how your inclination towards neutral point of view in that regard is virtually identical to my inclination towards neutral point of view in regards to the utilization of the word "islamophobia". I am confident that there are many others who share these views and so what I'm wondering is how we might be able to utilize these similiarities to truly benefit the Wikipedia project in terms of neutrality? I am inclined to think that if we support eachother's views in this regard the project will improve. Netscott06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I wish you wouldn't keep adding that factoid re "Muslim scientists calculated the earth's diameter as ...." The only point seems to be bragging. I don't see that any individual is made bigger or better by making claims of past achievement for a group to which he or she belongs. It's like graffiti artists tagging, except that in this case it's the past, not walls and subway cars. Is anyone any bigger or better if his "tag" appears all over the place? Is anyone any better if he identifies with a sports team and his team wins? Is anyone any more important if members of his religion (a religion with millions of members) did thus and such?
Those weren't "Muslim" scientists, they were scholars living in Baghdad under the Abbasid caliphs, more than a thousand years ago. Either they belong to nobody, or everybody. Yes, let's all take pride in the great things HUMAN BEINGS have done, and learn caution and self-examination by contemplating the horrible things humans have done too. Zora10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's the stalker now? I will either strike the comments out or remove them... which do you think makes more sense? Netscott15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know, do you really want to be editing in support of an editor (Resid Gulerdem) who has independently been repetitively blocked on the Wikipedia of his own native tongue? Myself, I try to choose my "battles" wisely. Netscott15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well by all means edit in support of him and watch your own reputation be tarnished and watch his negativity and disruptiveness further influence Wikipedia. Don't forget that the initiator of this latest series of events concerning Resid's disruptiveness was initiated by a fellow of his, the Turkish User:Azate. And as far as good faith is concerned you are rather asisine in making such comments when you initiated such demonstrations. Netscott15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm determining from your commentary that in fact the comments should just be in effect "reverted" out (through deletion) rather than struck out. I'd be fine with doing that. Netscott15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should know as well that much like your utilization of the word "racist" when referring to User:Karl Meier referring to me as a stalker or wikistalker qualifies as a personal attack. Your continued mischaracterization of myself is inclining me to follow User:Karl Meier's example and post a WP:PAIN notice which actually might have an effect in terms of curbing your repeated demonstrations of bad faith. Netscott15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling my actions as intimidation is another perfect example of your bad faith Irishpunktom. Being that you are the only individual who has has ever accused me of bad faith on Wikipedia and being that the same cannot be said for yourself I'm inclined to doubt your estimation of my character while I don't doubt my own regarding yourself. Netscott16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys! This seems to be lasting forever. Please make a real effort to sort it out because it is bothering. I'd be ready to help you in case you need it. Cheers -- Szvest16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™[reply]
I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes. Azate17:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, from looking at the history of Islam in Denmark it is clearer and clearer that you really have no qualms about edit warring. Why do you think you've been warned about this (particularly in regards to who you're edit warring with)? Hello! Dispute resolution, anyone? Netscott18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, i suggest that you discuss the points you are disagreeing with at the article's talk page. That's the proper manner. I don't want to see anyone of you blocked recklessly because we can't discuss things. Please make use of the talk page.
Re your answer of today about my mediation. Could you please tell me about your concerns. I need a honest opinion about the conflict between you and Scott. Cheers -- Szvest17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™[reply]
Thanks Tom for the details you provided. I'll have a look at them this afternoon and see what i'd suggest to sort this out between yourselves. Cheers -- Szvest10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™[reply]
I only read the links you posted which were the BBC one which said his injuries were not life threatening, and ABC which just said a guy was shot. Just checking [8] agrees with BBC. Feel free to update if you see something else though :) Kurando | ^_^15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to SirIsaacBrock you belong to "a small group of anti-Semites" on Wikipedia because you have received a certain barnstar. He has repeated the statement several times, for instance at Category talk:Anti-Semitic people#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Perhaps you would be interested to have a word in it. // Liftarn
then i guess i must be a anti semite as well... i did'nt know i was one, but considering i have that barnstar, the evidence is conclusive :( --Striver19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Northrop's book, although I haven't read it yet as I'm more interested in the Tsarist period. I'll have a look at it though and see if I can add anything to the page. I haven't read On Late Style - I have a lot a sympathy for Said's politics, but I consider his ideas about Orientalism fairly absurd (as you might guess from my recent additions to his page on the critical response to the book). Orientalism is a set text for a course I sometimes teach in Imperial History but otherwise I don't go out of my way to read his work because I just don't think it's very relevant for historians (not if you actually believe in History as a discipline, anyway). On Late Style got some pretty shocking reviews. Sikandarji06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry not to have done any work on Hujum yet, I've been very busy. I notice that there's another book forthcoming which might be useful to us: Marianne Kamp: The New Woman in Uzbekistan: Islam, Modernity, and Unveiling Under Communism (Jackson School Publications in International Studies) Sikandarji12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because you seem to think you're entitled to three reverts every twenty-four hours without penelty. You're not; you were trying to game the system to get away with edit warring. Tom HarrisonTalk17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Its not the first time this has happened between the pair of us on this page - we need a neutral mediator.. you wanna be up for the task? --Irishpunktom\talk18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but Timurids were culturally and linguistically Persianized to a great extent, please refer to the sources Tajik has provided. --ManiF17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know. But information about the Berlas is very rare in the internet. Babur belonged to the Berlas tribe, and since Timur and his tribe had settled in Persian Turkistan, Mongol-, Turkic-, and Iranian cultures had melted through the dynasty. And since "Persian culture" has always been the most influental culture within Islamic society, it's not wrong to say that the Berlas had embraced Turkic (meaning Turkic language) and Persian (meaning Persian life-style, art, literature, and so on) culture. Tajik17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? lol BTW: I have - once again - removed that totally wrong paragraph that is being pushed in by User:Johnstevens5 (who has been reported to admins by quite a few Wikipedians because pan-Turkic and racist propaganda). Tajik17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know Netscott as well, you might be interested in my arbitration case. Please note, that the Mediation of Islamophobia, which has not even started, is listed in "other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Raphael116:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you can freely communicate with other editors who you may want to make comments on the arbitration. It's probably not in your interests to edit articles, but you can edit talk pages. --Tony Sidaway22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the comment I've left on your arbitration case. I'd be glad, if you'd comment my arbitration case as well, especially regarding the Mediation Request Netscott filed regarding the Islamophobia article, which has been called a "failed attempt at dispute resolution" by a clerk and is supposed to prove my "tendentious editing on Islamophobia". Raphael111:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Category needs to be descriptive so that people want to explore it who come to read this online tome. Indian monarchs is far more interesting then an obscure link between sur dynasty and Indian monarchs. Tatra07:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
How about breaking it down into first Era, and then macro-region? viz. Russia proper (e.g. Tartarstan), Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.) and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Chechnya etc.). I don't agree with treating all the ethnic groups as homogenous, especially as Soviet policy was not uniform with respect to Muslims. - FrancisTyers·14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do however think your point about "accurate chronological order" is imperative :) — and if at a point there is no point in breaking it up, it won't be necessary. - FrancisTyers·14:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be editing for purposes unrelated to your arbirtation case. I'm blocking you for a week. Please let me or another admin know if you need to edit on WP:RFAR. Tom HarrisonTalk19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a mixup. I'll have a chat with Tom, though I have to grant him the last word. Apologies, it was my error if my words misled you. --Tony Sidaway22:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this to Islam, IPT. This is just not a value judgement as some seem to think, but the mere application of conventional terminology.Timothy Usher03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back on duty -- hope all is well with you and yours. Please let me know if there are articles you think I should be looking at. BYT10:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reponse, though I do not quite understand it due to lacking knowledge in the English-Irish conflicts, past and present. In any case I am sure you would agree that the unsigned comment I replied to was not appropriate.
Hey, I saw your lists of attacks on Muslum mosques over in Europe. I am an American and I have heard of attacks on mosques over here too. There is also (in my opinion) more intolerance here in america. I also heard of an bombing of a donut shop allegedly owned by Muslims in Utah, I think.--Lionheart Omega15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article Mohammed Agbareia for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Mohammed Agbareia satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Agbareia. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Mohammed Agbareia during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.
Your connection is very strained. There is no evidence that the meaning of taqiyya was somehow distorted by someone. Then, why didn't you insert a link to matzo? Anti-Semites also insinuated lots of nasty things about this food. Yor logic just doesn't hold water and looks... well, back-dated. PecherTalk20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that as i type you are waging a campaign to change all use of "Islamic" to "Muslim"[10]. Alphabetically it would seem (you have changed 40 articles and are only up to "C")!!!! You seem to maintain that a person can be Islamic - yet, convetional usage uses the word "Muslim" to describe someone of the faith. I did not know there was this distinction between the words Islamic and Muslim for the pious and the not so pious (as there is not one for "Christian"). It also wikipedia convetion to discuss such large scale edits. As it is to discuss page moves. [11]. Please provide justification for your unusual intepretations of English and please discuss all major moves and wide-ranging edits.--Merbabu12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with the change on my article on Management of Savagery. The motivation seems to me an attempt to differentiate those philosophies and events that are implicit to the the faith itself or its practice, and those which are carried out by individuals who happen to be or identify as Muslims. With all the people around who have agendas about demonizing the Islamic faith and its adherents, this seems to be reasonable. I agree that it should be discussed, though. Richardjames44411:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the discussion, wherabouts should I go to? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on what you meant, I assume that it was in relation to this discussion on renaming, which I am in agreement with but not clear on your motivations for. Richardjames44413:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you wrote the article Zachariah Blanton ... since he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, it is utterly inappropriate (and possibly libelous) to say with certainty that he killed someone. It is for this reason that newspapers and other media always make sure to include words indicating doubt such as "allegedly", and we must follow suit. Also, just because he confessed doesn't mean he necessarily did it either; there's lots of cases in which suspects have made false confessions for whatever reasons. --Cyde↔Weys18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the Musalymah page so that it now says he was one of many other people refered to as "false prophets" during the time of Muhemmed. Do you have a source for this, I've only heard of the Two Great Liers who were contemporaries of Muhemmed, not several men. --xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Piye, there is no specific study because he is not well known in the Egyptian records after his Year 20 conquest of Egypt. But on the Nubian 25th Dynasty, you may consider looking at Kenneth Kitchen's book on "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt" and possibly Robert Morkot's book on 'The Black Pharaohs.' Morkot's book is not bad but his chronology for the Nubian Dynasty is suspect and he, I believe, supports the idea of coregencies in the Nubian kingdom whereas no evidence supports the view that the Nubian kings ever used the coregency system. They merely ruled Egypt with one king on the throne. Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoboudv (talk • contribs)
Hey, you moved the current terror plot page without discussion and spelt Transatlantic incorrect. Could you please discuss these changes first on the Talk page before carrying out wholesale changes incorrectly. Cheers. Budgiekiller10:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit another person's addition to a talk page, even if it is a spelling error. You should only remove it if you are 100% sure it is vandalism. --Zimbabweed10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striver's comment on Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is completely irrelevant and potentially harmful. It has been removed several different times by several different people, and for good reason. As the {{talkheader}} at the top says, "Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That's exactly what Striver is doing. On a subject like this, Striver's insertion of his point-of-view that this is just some sort of ploy to entice Europe into attacking Iran and implying "Pearl Harbor 3" (whatever happened to "Pearl Harbor 2"? 9|11?) could potentially attract an unnecessary debate. Striver's "I told you so", once again, could be a magnet for heated debate. Talk pages are not for that and Wikipedia does not need it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove points of view on talk pages. Talk pages are there to talk about points of views, not removing them or shuting them up. --Striver16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict:Captured vs. Kidnapped
Perhaps you were unaware, but there is a very lively discussion/informal poll regarding this issue on the talk page, here: Consensus vote: Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Captured, Kidnapped, or Abducted. Unilateral changes should be avoided while this process is in force, but please make your opinions known and heard on the talk page, to help arrive at a consensus. Thank you. -- Avi16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts to comprise, however, it is not needed to mention Timur's language in the introduction. It is mentioned later in the text, and given the fact, that Timur's Mongol descent ment much more to him than his Turkic language or his Perso-Islamic culture, there is absolutely no need to mention it in the first sentence.
Btw: here is the article "Timur" (written by Beatrice F. Manz) from the famous Encyclopaedia of Islam: [12] It's clear from the beginning on, that Timur was a Mongol and regarded himself as such. Not Turkic, not Arab, and not Persian!
Here an extract from the first paragraph:
"... Timur rose to power in in the Ulus Chaghatay, a tribal tribal confederation forming the western section of the Mongol Chaghatay Khanate [q.v.] He was a member of the Barlas of the Kish region. This was an important Mongol tribe within the Ulus, tracing its leadership back to Chinggis Khan’s commander Karachar, who shared a common ancestor with Chinggis, and was later attached to his son Chaghatay. Timur descended from Karachar but was not of the chiefly lineage, and gained power through skilful politics and the help of a personal, non-tribal tribal following ..."
The Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even mention his mother-tongue. Obviously, the authors of the article (all of them experts) did not consider it any important.
Hello grand master thinker man. The obvious reason to keep the names of those harassed around is they will be used by users to locate further information via searching in the future. As the case unravels, trials and releases may be done piecemeal, and the only way for users to find the relevant information will be by cutting and paste specific names in search engines, since obviously the owners of the media will not assist in their personal research and seeking of the truth, in the revelation that this was all just a mass manipulation to skew thoughts away from key failures in global and domestic administration. Please, keep in mind that this is an electronic medium and costs us relatively nothing to have a few extra bytes of information for all time to chronicle crimes of the highest order, those done by sick ones that have taken control of the real decisions; OK, I decided what pants I got to wear today, fair to say. This is one of our last mechanisms to corral them, via shame, into not acting like a bunch of savage blood and bone suckers, please don't take it litely. And please reverse your appeal for deletion and stop adding them in the future. You are only giving excuse to the provocateurs. Rock on. Oh wait, maybe that's how you make a living Holon6714:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim1m16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've noticed you seem to have an interest in Israel-Palestine articles, and I thought I'd let you know that some POV pushers are trying to delete Israel-South Africa relations, despite it being very well sourced and balanced. I'm just worried that they'll succeed if nobody else notices what's going on. Thanks, Deuterium04:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What follows are the thoughts, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".
"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."
Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"
I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.
Because as pointed out by user:okedem on user:Deuterium's talk page, that is out of scope of the article, and is being used to push an anti-Israel POV. That is not a content dispute, but closer to anti-NPOV vandalism and WP:OR on Deuterium's part. -- Avi15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Human Rights, the source that is cited speaks of the same. It is a content dispute, and you should not use your Roll-Back. Do not do that again. --Irishpunktom\talk16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material quoted does not relate to human rights in Israel; it seems to be a private legal transaction between an employer and an employee. It does NOT belong in the article until it can be shown that such transactions are governmentally mandated to discriminate, or something to that effect. Passing off out-of-scope and immateriel data in order to push a POV is vandalism and not a content dispute. Thank you. -- Avi16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you in accordance with the ARBCOM ruling which states that you may only have one revert per article per week, which you appear to have contravened at Islam with your edits on August 31, at 16.59 and 17.26. Blnguyen | rant-line22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Irishpunktom, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker(talk)21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a polite message on the "Raphael Levy" (cough cough) user talk page asking for a response to my comments on the Srda talk page. If he doesn't make an effort at providing a reasonable explanation I'll just revert but hoping to avoid getting into a revert war. I just don't have time for that these days. --Lee Hunter16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IPT, you might want to review your edits before someone with some extra buttons does and make sure you haven't crossed a line. It'd suck to see you get blocked again when you're just editing in good faith. (→Netscott)12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, good work on referencing this article. I'm not very happy with the paragraph about the briefing paper which contains the quote about the non-aligned movement. It doesn't seem legitimate to say "the board believes" on the grounds of that reference.. I would only feel comfortable saying that if it was an explicit motion passed by the board. I don't think the paper is particularly notable and I am also concerned that the quote is taken out of context. Anyway could you please do a little more work on that paragraph so that I can be in a position of backing you up if someone tries to get rid of it entirely (as they surely will). Yours Zargulon12:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Irishpunktom, you are doing simply great job at Muhammad article. Even with your prole and everything. I really appreciate your work there. --- ابراهيم10:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.
The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk·contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk·contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.
Hi Irishpunktom. Please, could you upload the image of Saint Columba also to wikipedia commons. In this way I (and others) could use it in wikipedia for other languages. Thanks a lot, Tomás Santa Coloma, Tasc114:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Irishpunktom, maybe you know, whats the Islamic term for the corruption of scriptures/monotheism in Judaism and Christianity?Opiner07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are absolutely saturated with POV. You hardly deserve to be left on Wikipedia - your activities are going to be monitored. MarkThomas14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, of course I don't hate you, and I appreciate that you are trying to live within your edit restrictions. As for the edits themselves, most of them are quite problematic, given WP:BLP; I'll comment further on the relevant Talk: page. Jayjg (talk)15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A Lebanese woman ... as she walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs 5 August, 2006"
I believe that "overnight" here is journalist shorthand indicating that an event occurred during the evening of the previous day or the early hours of the current day. What's your interpretation of that word? (You can reply here.) Cheers, CWC(talk)17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salutations to the read should be made in the language of the Quran, and said not read
I was removnig the PBUH which an anon user added. Muslims say "Peace be upon him" when the names of the Prophets are read or said, but it should not have to be written for them to realise they are to say it. --Irishpunktom\talk18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am in a dispute with a user in the Hafiz article, and i would like to bring this conflict into your attention in order to get some non-involved feed back. You can view the nature of the conflict here: [13], [14], [15][16]. Thanks and peace. --Striver20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, it would fit in other sections. I suppose we keep it further down in the article out of respect for Muslim sensitivities, I wouldn't directly support putting it in the lead. There should be a calligraphic image at the top, and the "preaching" image will fit in almost any context of M's biography. I do not think there are too many images at this point. Of course at a point where they become clutter, some will need to be removed, but that was clearly not the purpose of their removal at present. dab(ᛏ)14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you endorsed the RFC - fair enough. I find that I don't understand Dbivs complaint, and he refuses to explain - see the talk page. You've endorsed the RFC, and therefore (I presume) you do understand his complaint. Would you be kind enought to answer as best you understand the questions, please? William M. Connolley16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IPT, your contribution history shows your standards to be much higher than this. I urge you to take a close look at this article in light of WP:RS and WP:NOR and reconsider your recommendation. This is the Islamic equivalent of Jack Chick publications, and brings both Islam and Wikipedia into disrepute.Proabivouac06:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. I appreciate your thoughtful comments on Muhammad. Ibrahimfaisal said that you had been blocked for making three reverts in a week. I don't know if that is true, and if true, I don't know if it was inadvertant. Is there anything I can do to help keep you from getting blocked? --BostonMAtalk11:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ever realize that you did break a rule, such as 3RR or in your case 1R/W, in my opinion, the best thing to do is revert yourself back to whatever, and report your mistake to an admin or arbcom or whatever. This would be a sign of good faith. I know its too late now, but just a thought for the future. (Hope I don't sound like I'm lecuturing, just trying to help out). --BostonMAtalk11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When an article gets very large, or for some reason some content is not put there, it is standard procedure to put a link to it at the top.
It is very neutral to have a link to the depiction of Muhammad on the Muhammad page. A picture should be right there on the page but people are upset.
It is giving something undue weight to remove it becuase some people are offended by the idea of a picture of something. Please discuss before reverting this. HighInBC14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I don't see how a neutral image of the subject of the article can be given undue wieght, is it even possible? HighInBC14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate your sentiments, that putting the link to Images of Muhammad at the top gives them undue weight. You are probably right, that it does give undue weight. On the other hand, there are editors who would put a giant sizes portrait of Muhammad out of some dictionary at the top. Highinbc is attempting a compromise. Wouldn't it be worth a try? --BostonMAtalk14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishpunktom. In this discussion you mention King Fahd's edition of the Koran as stating that (if I understand correctly) verse 2:256 was revealed at Makkah. Can you quote the full phrase or point me to the relevant link? Thanks in advance. --Filius Rosadis16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➨ ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Irishpunktom for reasoned, thoughtful production of ideas when asked for them in a debate that have helped me and others and have thus improved Wikipedia for everybody. Thank you.
Your recent edit to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, with an edit summary of "Claim by one party in conflict should be stated as claim" also removed a well sourced claim attributed to The Kuwiat Times. If this was doen inadvertently, please restore that content. If oit was done intentionaly, then please be mindful that the removal of sourced material without explanation, and with a misleadign edit summary, is considered vandalism. Isarig17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks for posting your statement! Could you please edit it to be a concise statement (I am asking for 2-3 sentences) of your position (for/against) without including ideas for a solution? We are just trying to get statements of position out on the table first - later we will have time to propose solutions. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk)00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom it looks like youre about to break the three-revert rule on Muhammad. Captions were compromised on the discussion page. PLease join discussion instead of reverting all the time!Opiner20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the content doesn't matter. 3rr only counts reverts, it doesn't deal with content issues. You might have a very valid point as far as the content goes, but you still broke the 3rr. Seraphim00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there may be some unfairness in such a comment, if one is not prepared to further engage in explanations, debates and arguments to support it. However, in the light of some of the protracted, and repetitive arguments that I have seen you engage in, I must admit... I can't be bothered. Sorry. 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I simply neither have the time nor desire to get into such discussions, providing many a link and wordy explanations. My last words on this matter.Varga Mila12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion and I would like to know why you think they didn't (did random family trees with no sourced to meet WP:V deserve to be on Wikipedia?). I would also like to know if you think the following qualifies as WP:POINT (or is Striver above Wikipedia policy?), and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.
And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.
When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.
I was just admiring your userpage and wanted to know exactly how some of your entries constitute hate. Concerning the UK Commissioner’s remarks: So Muslims who wish to throw out the age-old laws, processes, and government of Britain and replace them with pure Islamic law are note hateful, but a commissioner advising those who wish to do so to leave is? —Aiden22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments were concerning a poll conducted in the UK which saw some 60% of Muslim residents convey that they would like to see the current UK government replaced with an Islamic government operating under Sharia. You make it sound as if he basically told all adherent Muslims to leave, which is not the case. —Aiden23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the poll the Commissioner was responding to was not about use of Sharia in daily life, but about the 60% of British Muslims wishing to replace the current British government with one that uses Sharia as its legal basis? You are misrepresenting the topic grossly. —Aiden02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to an ICM poll discussed here. Among other things it states: The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law." Further, 58% of Muslims agree that "despite the right to free speech, In Britain people who insult or criticize Islam should face criminal prosecution." My point is that the Commissioner's remarks were simply directed toward those who want Shariat courts in the stead of current British courts, not to Muslims who wish to adhere to Sharia or any other personal moral code, as your userpage insinuates. Secondly, I really don't see how the comments are 'hateful.' He is basically saying, "If you don't like our country, leave." It has nothing to do with being Muslim or non-Muslim in my mind. —Aiden02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not the content of the poll, it's your characterization of the Commissioner's comments as "hate" and your attempts to demonize any dissenting opinion and portry Muslims as perpetual victims of hate. Just like how you characterize those who claim Islam is a violent religion as 'hateful' but don't mention people who firebomb embassies and consolutes because of cartoons. But it's obvious you've made up your mind on the issue. Nice talking with you. —Aiden22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with a single point you made, but I wont fight the move. I really cant see how Muslim world is the correct term. That's like saying Israel is the home base for the "Jew world." KI02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing my point. It makes more sense to refer to the Jewish world than the Jew world. KI21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this proposal for changes in the aniconism section.
Btw, nicely done on that block there... you did a good job hurting yourself too, that part made me laugh. The break did me some good though. I'm ready to do some more verbal battling and non-NPOV crushing. :-) Netscott11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Plagge.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you find information on a topic whose article is up for AfD, info that you believe establishes its notability, e.g. Islamic Center of Irvine, you might consider adding it to the article. Also, your earlier keep votes on Jersey Devil's AfDs of Striver-created articles accused JD of making a point. AFAIK it violates no policies to state that in an AfD (though it doesn't really speak to the reasons stated for the AfD). However your later ones accused him of being on a Crusade. That's a rather more inflammatory accusation to make given the context. I think in the interest of civility you should refrain from that accusation.
Well, hello again Tom! Perhaps you could you elaborate on why you dislike the title please? And recomend a replacement title? please? Veej02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom. Sorry to be thick. you added this to the talk page;
POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that;This is the most used name for this event (I don't think it is)That the groups in question have all been identified as "Islamist" by a reputable sources.That the event only took place in one location.--Irishpunktom\talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So this means that you do object to the title? Please state on the talk page what you think the title should be changed to. Veej02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to thank you for your contribution on Wikiethics page. We would appreciate your suggestions on improving the policy. As you probably noticed, Arguments and Sections subpages are for improving the policy. Thanks Resid Gulerdem19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed true that Peter is a gay rights campaigner. However, gay rights is a subset of human rights, and recently Peter's campaigns have gone much further than merely gay rights. It was always the view of OutRage! (as indeed of the GLF) that gay liberation would mean straight liberation too. To insist on restricting him to gay rights activism would be POV. But for evidence, try the Daily Telegraph of March 10: "Peter Tatchell, the human rights activist, organised ...", or The Sun, February 25: "Outspoken gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell" (note the precise wording: his sexuality is gay, but his campaigning is on human rights), or Peter Tatchell's own article in the New Statesman on February 6. This is particularly instructive: "The Liberals also drew attention to my homosexuality and support for gay human rights", "he paid tribute to my human-rights work", "he has the best record on the issues that matter to me: democracy, human rights". So I do not accept your wording. David | Talk19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your recent revert of someone else's edits to the page, have you ever thought that you could partially revert the bit you didn't like rather than blank reverting the whole edit? David | Talk17:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why in the world did the whole vandilasation joke become such a problem between you and Netscott? Why else would I put in the Police line and chalk outline, and CSI thing on there, as well. It was half joke, half "You know you're not supposed to edit other's userpages, how would you feel if I actually screwed up your userpage with the same reason you edited mine?" Explain yourselves. Now. Crad001000:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you count the amount of times Netscott has used the word "asinine" during his short Wikipedia career.. and this inherent need of his to repetitvely reuse the same word extends to others - See what "Netscott words" you can find! He claimed to be a bastian of civility, chastising others for their lack of it, and goes around calling people "idiot", "mentally challanged" and now hes started calling people dicks - nice. --Irishpunktom\talk12:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your falsehoods never cease. Irishpunktom, because our abilities for argument are not evenly matched I don't see this "debate" going very far. But do your best to at least try to back them up with some proof. I've never called you a "dick", I've cited this very valid WikiMedia "principal" and sent you there. As for the others, please do provide a diff or two. Netscott12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I haven't offended any Rajput nutters though. The number of rabid Hindu nationalists on Wikipedia never ceases to astonish me. Sikandarji17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expanding the article on babur, and tomorrow I shall enter the battles against Hindus, specifically the battle against Rana Sanga, so, i'd like it if you could help and make sure that I remain as NPOV as possible! As it stands the article Rana Sanga clarly is wrong, with a heavy anti-Hindu bias (though not a Pro-Muslim one, curiously)- so yeah, Help would be appreciated if you could provide it, or point me in the direction of where it can be obtained! --Irishpunktom\talk16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reply:
Great grapes
Let us first eat some grapes, and then think of all the other issues. And, please remember rule number 48 of Rules which states that "The truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion." Please also be reminded of the words of William Ralp Inge [18] once said: “Events in the past may be roughly divided into those which probably never happened and those which do not matter. This is what makes the trade of historian so attractive.” --Bhadani17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not blanket revert a good faith edit that has added useful material, merely because you dislike some of the other changes. David | Talk20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that your indirect reverts tantamounts against the spirit of wikipedia. Please assume good faith, and avoid such deletion of contents. --Bhadani15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"(rv Davids grossly POVerted entry)" = Personal attack? Seems more like just a humorous play on words...can we say exaggeration? David, ever hear of the phrase "perverted justice"? Is there not something a bit more damning? Netscott22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and Dbiv about to be heavily in violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. I suggest if any editing/reverting in the near future be done by someone else. I suggest getting consensus on it on the talk page before furthur reverting. If any futher revert wars between you two occur, I am reporting it on WP:AN/3RR. Thank you. Moeε23:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishpunktom, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will request you to please have some more grapes, already supplied to you, and think deeply over your action of uncivil and rude behavior towards me by labeling my roll back as being acting as a PROXY for POV pushers. I recommend that you stop indulging in administrator bashing. I am your friend, and therefore I am giving you a friendly advice. All may not be as nice as me, and may contemplate/ initiate appropriate measures as enshrined in wiki-policies. Please remember the ten commandments for an ideal wikipedian as set forth by SV, which I reproduce below:
Be nice. Praise people when you see things being done well. Write personal notes to people on their talk pages saying what a good edit such-and-such was. You can make someone's day with some positive feedback.
Don't engage in unnecessary personal criticism or personal attacks. At the same time, let people know that you're able and willing to stand up for yourself and your edits, but not to the point of being obnoxious.
Try to be reasonable. If you establish a reputation as a reasonable editor, people will forgive you almost any other quirk. Try not to get on your high horse over an issue. Don't become a single-issue editor. And when you see that an argument has gone decisively against you, walk away no matter how annoyed you are. Never disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
Vote for responsible people to become administrators, even if you disagree with them politically.
Vote for articles that are going through the featured-article process. Read them carefully, make constructive suggestions, and give praise where it's due, because it really is harder than it looks to get an article through that peer review.
Try to steer an article that you've written to featured-article status. It's hard work, but it will establish you as a serious editor.
Don't criticize admins unduly and don't jump on admin-attack bandwagons. It's easy to make mistakes as an admin, so be generous in your dealings with them. You'll usually find that they, in turn, will be generous in their dealings with you.
Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR. Be self-limiting in how many times you revert a page in a day. Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk.
Contribute well-researched, well-referenced content, no matter how humble, to the encyclopedia, and discuss your edits on talk pages. Don't spend all your time on talk, but don't closet yourself away in the encyclopedia either. This is a community. Be part of it.
I love you, and your reputation here, please try to project yourself in edits reflection the global aspiration of wikipedia, I am sure that you are capable and nice person. All the best! --Bhadani05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who add this tag to articles must substantiate their reasons for doing so. You have until the end of today to list your precise objections to the article, or this tag will be removed and reapplication will be considered vandalism. David | Talk09:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the one with the problems with a consensus version, it is up to you and you alone to state your objections. It is not the case that by putting the tag on, you force the article's authors to defend their work. You are the challenger: go ahead and challenge, then others will assess whether the challenge has merit. David | Talk11:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. A consensus version is not necessarily the best version. Consensus is a matter of numbers, perfection is not. You have to argue your case for why the consensus version is bad, and everyone is still waiting for you to do that. David | Talk12:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one adding the tag. You are the one challenging the consensus version. If you have a legitimate challenge it should not be too hard to describe it. Why are you so reluctant to do so? David | Talk13:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour is now becoming trollish. There is no "other consensus", there is just your POV version. If you want to claim it is NPOV, fine, go ahead on Talk:Peter Tatchell. If you fail to do so I will remove the tag. I will not respond to any messages from you on my talk page until you outline your case. Disruptive editing is a blockable offence. David | Talk14:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do you prefer "Islamophobia is a neologism referring to a fear of Islam which leads to hostility toward or prejudice against Muslims as a religious, ethnic or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." over "Islamophobia is a neologism referring to a prejudice towards the religion of Islam and its adherents [1], or by extension to predominantly Muslim peoples and their cultures."?
The article is slowly going the route of POV after so much hard work by editors like myself and others who have strived to keep a page about such a controversial figure NPOV. I have also left comments on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated. SouthernComfort03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am frustrated. Pecher does not accept my arguments though I think they are logical. He even does not argue against them. He just does not accept. I am willing to get blocked at the expense of having my edits on for awhile. If Pecher reverts my edit, he will be also blocked. --Aminz10:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also logically argued(in mediation page) that there is no reason that Pecher's edit should be on. I have an NPOV logical support for my action while Pecher does not have any. --Aminz10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a nice idea to join the discussion too . Pecher is going on & on with his edits , while we wait for his replies . Its not just 2 articles , there are atleast 5 of them where he has added loads of accusations , citing them as facts . I am retired hurt at the moment . Thanks . F.a.y.تبادله خيال/c16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Irishpunktom, your recent nomination for Babur to be promoted to good article status has failed on various grounds which have been listed on the article's talk page. Please expand on these comments and re-apply for Good Article Status. Thank you for contributing, keep up the good work, Highway22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please :D, just drop a note when you're done and I'll see if it's up to GA level then. It probably will, it was a very close article to begin with (I am known as one of the tougher GA reviewers :P). Good luck with the improvements and I await your message, Highway13:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Babur has been promoted to GA status, please keep up the great work. I look forward to your future nominations (no wrestling or baseball pleeease XD) Highway15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wont send me a confirmation mail, and im sure i entered the right email... it sended it to me once, but it didnt work, and i wont send me another :S --Striver22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at [20] Thanks --Aminz06:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thnak you for your efforts to improve the articles Babur and Mughals. However, the folloiwng paragraph you have put in the article is wrong - in many ways:
The Mughals were led into India by Babur who had been born in Central Asia in 1483. Babur's victory at Panipat in 1526 established the Mughal Empire and ended the reign of the Delhi Sultanate. ... Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.
Kabul was not the capital of Afghanistan 500 years ago because of a very simple reason: Afghanistan did not exist back then. The nation today known as "Afghanistan" was created in 1919 during the so-called "Anglo-Afghan Wars"; the Pashtun kingdom created by Ahmad Shah Abdali, considered by many as the beginning of modern Afghanistan, was an offspring of many revolts that took place in Persia after the fall of the Safavids. The capital of Afghanistan was Qandahar. It was Timur Shah, 2nd king of Afghanistan, who moved the capital to Kabul.
Timur Khan (Tamerlane) was not a Turk. He was Mongol, a descendant of the Mongol commander Qarachar Noyon (his father Taraghai was the great-grandson of Qarachar Noyon). Timur married into a noble Mongol family, his first wife Bibi Khanym was a direct descendant of Gengiz Khan (that's one of the main reasons why his succcessor and youngest son ,Shah Rukh - born to a Persian concubine of Timur, was not accepted by Mongol nobles and was forced to move his capital from Central-Asia to Persian-dominated Herat). Timur tried very hard to trace his own heritage to Gengiz Khan - he considered himself "Mongol" and not "Turk".
Babur's biography is no proof for his Turkic origin. His heritage, his family's background and his forefathers are well docuemnted in historic scriptures. Writing a biography in a Turkic language is no proof for a Turkic origin. His ancestor, Timur, had his biography written in Persian language, although he himself was an ethnic Mongol and Turkic in language. Timur's descendants, the Timurid Shahs of Persia, were ethnically Persians, almost all of them being born to Persian mothers (starting with Shah Rukh, who himself married the Persian princess Gauhar Shad, mother of Ulugh Beg) - yet, the Timruids are still considered Mongols. And since Babur was also a Timurid prince (though his linage was not the main linage of the family), he was considered to be a Mongol, too. That's where the word "Moghol"/"Mughal" became the name of the dynasty - the Timurids AND Babur were Mongols; not Turks and not Persians, although their culture was deffinitly Islamic (Turco-Persian) and their language Persian.
The Encyclopaedia Iranica is an authoritive scholarly work written by countless experts from all over the world, including "superstars" such as Dr. Nelson Frye, Dr. Nicolas Sims-Williams, Dr. Monika Grohnke, and so on. The article "Babor" in the EIr is written by experts with referrences to other works written by experts. The EIr does not consider Babur a "Turk" and attests that his language, training, and culture was - like that of all Tiumurids - Persian. The language of his biography does not change this fact.
Kabul is now the capital of Afghanistan, and that is what I believe is implied, Obvioulsy it was not the capital when the invasion took place.
We are talking about Babur, and therefore, the word "Afghanistan" has no place in the article. Afghanistan was created 300 years after Babur's death.
Timur was a Turk, and this harps back to previous discussions - He was of the Barlos tribe. This tribe, like many others boasted a Mongol name and ancestry but for all practical purposes it was Turkic. Turki was Timurs' mother tongue, altough he may have known some Persian from the Cultural milieu in which he lived; he almost certainly knew no Mongolian, though Mongol terminology had not quite disappeared from administrative documents and coins.
Timur was a Mongol - that's what he himself claimed, and that's what modern historians today claim. His biography is the main source we have (along with many others). Of course, Chaghatai language was Timur's mother-tongue, however, this does not make the entire dynasty "Turkish", because all of his descendants were native Persian-speakers.
Babur's biography is a primary source, and one of few we have. Babur is a Turco-Mongol, as stated. His Turk origins being far more than his Mongol.
Babur had many different ancestors, including Arabs, Persians, and others. His biography is only ONE of many written documents we have about Babur. He himself wrote many other docuemnts in Persian and - to a lesser degree - in Persian. And even IF Babur were 100% Turkic, that would still not turn an entire dynasty (that lastet until the 19th century!) "Turkish". All of Babur's descendants were Persian-speaking. There is not a single official document of the Mughal era written in Turkish. Babur's son Humayun spent 10 years in Persian exile, married a Persian noble, and brought countless Persian artists, scholars, etc to India (a process which was already begun by his father Babur). You are deffinitly overestimating the "Turkish identity".
OMG ... if this is your opinion, then you're probably not the right person to talk to. The "Encyclopaedia Iranica", which is a grand-project of the Columbia University and officially funded by the American and EU governments is the "bible of Oriental studies"! Only a very few of the EIr authors are actually Iranian or Iranian-speaking (and even less are Persian-speaking). The grand majority of the authors are American and European scholars who teach at world-famous universities, such as Harvard University, Universität Tübingen, or Columbia University! Maybe you should take a look at what scholars from all over the world say about the Encyclopaedia Iranica: Scholars on "Iranica"
You say: The Encyclopaedia Iranica "focuses on the land, life, culture and history of all Iranian peoples and their interaction with other societies."[8], and thus, as I have said, is the opposite of NPOV
I think you are just rejecting the Encyclopaedia Iranica (an encyclopaedia which is accepted and supported by experts all around the world) because it simply disproves and rejects your claims. With all due respect, but I believe that you are not match for countless of scholars and experts who have written scholarly articles for that encyclopaedia. The EIr is (along with the Encyclopaedia of Islam which is written by the same authors) the "bible of oriental and islamic history" - Wikipedia articles that contradict the EI or EIr are wrong and need to be corrected. Your claim - that one paragraph you are trying to push into the article Mughals - very obviously contradicts the EI and EIr (and it contains many minor mistakes as well, such as the claim that "Timur was a Turk", although Timur was clearly a Mongol and even considered himself a Mongol!). I have not reverted your version because of 3RR, yet, I will contact an admin to remove that paragraph and block the article until the disagreement is settled.
Well, we all seem to agree now, much to my relief. Thanks for all your help. For what it's worth I use the Encyclopaedia Iranica as well, and it is an excellent and authoritative source. That said, it is not infallible, and obviously in the case of a subject like Babur they feel they have to justify his inclusion in an Encyclopaedia devoted to the Iranian World, resulting in the passages quoted by Tajik. I think they over-egg the pudding somewhat, and fail to distinguish between Babur and his much more Persianised successors, but we've found an acceptable compromise, so let us live in harmony. Sikandarji18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that you were involved in a discussion about the Buddha statues and the how and why of their destruction. Then, you'll probably find this interesting: [22]Azate23:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!, nice.... that's a new editiorial reason for deletion, "dubiousness"... that sounds like "I have not logicness for this removal".... Prior to actually reverting your 'dubious' removal I thought I'd give you a chance to explain why you want to remove such well cited material? Netscott23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you may not need to do any explaining after all as it seems that a fellow editor independently came to the conclusion that your removal was dubious. Funny how that is. Netscott00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, please know that I actually do agree with you that there are a number of editors who do edit with heavy POV counter to the spirit of NPOV (in anti-muslim/Islam ways) and if you follow my contributions you'll see a case or two on how I've responded to that. Based upon some of the editing I've seen yourself and a number of editors do I'm inclined to think that those 'counter' editors probably feel as if they're in a war and need to enter equally strong and biased counter POV. This type of editing really goes against the spirit of WikiPedia... and it is for this reason that I'm making efforts to council others against such heavy POV editing. If you were to follow my editing contributions I think you'd be hard-pressed to find that I've been anything but balanced in my editing on Islamic/muslim articles.
Thanks for wriring concerning Mughal Empire. As far as that article is concerned, after having followed User:Tajik's logic on that article's talk page and his mention of the Encyclopedia Iranica (and it's reputation), I'm inclined to support his editorial stance on that matter. Netscott10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishpunktom, the discussion on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would appreciate for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem03:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted for the simple fact that the section I introduced is a much more accurate representation of who those individuals are. The are not 'military'. I know that many of your edits typically try to glorify Islam but you've got to take the bad with the good Irishpunktom. That section title is as truthful as they come. Netscott13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your wikification of Andrew Rowe was so bad faith... that particular Andrew Rowe has no relation to the one that I've cited. Your contention that my section addition is 'messy' is false... it's quite clean if you want to 'clean' the article get rid of the "philosophers" section that has only one individual in it. Netscott13:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up a bit. There are two important sources for Humayun's reign which I haven't read: Khwandamir's Qanun-e Humayun and Biyazid Biyat's Tadhkira-e Humayun wa Akbar, the latter of which I think you've cited. I need to have a look at these before I make any more changes. Great job so far! Sikandarji16:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, Anonymous Editor and I worked back and forth last night and came to that version of the article with that section title. Please cease removing it. Netscott16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, why are you showing up on pages which you have neither edited before nor participated in Talk: on to suddenly involve yourself in edit wars and revert them? It's extremely disruptive, please stop. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - please be aware that leaping head-on into someone else's edit war is disruptive, and deliberately disruptive edits can be considered vandalism. Please be careful. Proto||type16:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, could I ask you please not to revert in support of the LaRouchies and others at the NOR page? They're trying to install edits that would completely destroy not only NOR, but the V and NPOV policies too. They have no chance of succeeding, because even if they got the support (and they wouldn't), Jimbo would overrule them, so their behavior is disruption pure and simple. The editors backing them up are very new and don't understand the policies (e.g. one of them has 71 edits to articles). They caused chaos yesterday and today between them, and now one has been blocked and the page is protected, so no good has come of it. I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't support them in this. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...is a broad undefined term that usually relates to..."? Please.
Pretending for the sake of discussion that this was a sincere attempt to improve the article,
1) There's no problem with broad terms; many articles have them 2) the term is not undefined, as the article makes clear 3) "usually"? Can you explain where and when it doesn't? 4) please actually read the article 5) there is this tab on the top of your WP interface, between the "article" and "edit this page" buttons, called "discussion".Timothy Usher08:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that reverting the changes was probably the best thing to do - I was trying to seek consensus, but I guess that seeking consensus every single time might be counterproductive. So, good work on the revert. --Jakob mark08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree it's not that big of a deal so I don't understand why you've moved it to the bottom. Can you explain why you done so? It's perfectly logical that it is at the start of a section for the purposes of clarity that it is that particular section that needs work (ie: not the entire article). Netscott11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me help you understand, User:Jacoplane added the clean-tag to the external links section based upon what he expressed here. Please replace the clean up tag where he originally placed it. Netscott11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, please don't revert my removals of examples of linkspam. Doing so only encourages that type of anti-Wikipedia behaviour. Netscott11:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I admit that I didn't realize it at first but in the end my removals were in accord with policies and guidlines for doing so. But you must admit the title of that link was anything but NPOV. Netscott11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No denying that, but was moreso curious as to your perspective on that particular link. Regardless, that was a very clear example of linkspamming. Netscott13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this and alter your plans for censorship accordingly... The arcticle does not qualify for speedy deletion because it was created more than 48 hours ago. Netscott14:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Playing the victim"? Riiight... there's an icecube's chance in hell of seeing that article deleted. But by all means please continue with your censorship attempts. Netscott14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I suggest you follow the indications for submitting a {{copyvio}}. Once that fails then by all means submit the article for deletion using your other dubious reasoning. Netscott14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you check them out you will see that there was a lot of movement, I mean the information as it is now is exactly the same as it was two days ago before Netscott added the link. He wanted it in, I thought he was mistaken, I didn't break the 3rr on that, I then rephrased the info, he reverted, I reverted back. I reverted more than 3 times, but not to the same version, and did not remove the info or the citation. Have you gone through all the edits?--Irishpunktom\talk20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your 4 reverts are easy to find: this [24] is the zeroth; [25], [26], [27] and [28] all remove the same text, and I think I could find more if I needed to. AE has suggested reducing your block; I'm prepared to lift it entirely if you'll (a) recognise that you've broken the rules and (b) promise to be good (which for that article means not reverting it until your block would have expired) William M. Connolley21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, I have decided to not edit infidel further until I can better understand what the word kafir is about.
Despite your utilizing false logic in your attempts to justify removing the word 'pejorative' when describing the word kafir from the infidel article I'm wondering if it's merely due to difficulty on your part to develop a proper logical argument for refusing it's inclusion. I have been inclined to include such wording on the infidel article simply due to the fact that is how the very kafir article and the Encyclopedia Britannica articles describe it.
Can you please try to explain to me with a logical, truthful explanation for why it should not be included? Perhaps you can invite someone else here to do so? If not, then I intend to re-introduce that language into the article. Netscott21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but relative to the kafir article and the Encyclopedia Britannica (which spells out explicitly "kafir") in the heading your logic is false, was there something else you could provide me with? Netscott21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Britannica says : KAFFIR: also spelled Kafir, Arabic
Kafir (“Infidel”),
member of a group of southern African Bantu-speaking peoples (see Xhosa);
also, member of a people of the Hindu Kush in northeastern Afghanistan (see Nuristani).
Use of the term for either group reflects a negative opinion. Especially in South Africa, kaffir (not capitalized) is used in a generally pejorative way to mean any African black.[30]--Irishpunktom\talk22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand what you're saying here that in that particular article about kafir they refer only to it being pejorative in South Africa so I appreciate that. Now what about this from kafir?
Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth. In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term used to describe a non-Muslim, a Muslim of a differing sect, or an apostate from Islam. It is often translated into English as "infidel" and carries the weight of a racial epithet.
I hope you don't mind if I jump in here: the sentence "It is often translated into English as "infidel" and carries the weight of a racial epithet." in the wikipedia article is deceptive. I don't know the history of the article, but I'd guess it arose from an attempt to join two sentences. As discussed, kafir is a racial epithet in South Africa. Whether it had a racial connotation when used by Arab slavers, or if this was pure reanalysis on the part of colonials, is an interesting question. But generally, kafir makes no reference to race at all - these are two distinct uses of the term which have been conflated here. Someone should fix that.Timothy Usher22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti: "However, kafir is now a derogatory term, and that is why I would encourage Muslims to use the term "non-Muslims when referring to people of different faiths. This is based on the verse: (…Speak nicely to the people.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 83) "
"(The British prefer to call it a natal lily, as to them Kaffir is a derogatory slang-word.)"
Hmm, looks to be pretty pejorative to me (note the first link is Islamonline.net, which you yourself frequently use as a reliable source). Netscott23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this deletion discussion, you recommended merge. I'm just wondering if you'd clarify on the AFD page where you would like to merge to? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the current version is the revert, would you be willing to post below your intended version? Again, I'm not thinking about content at this point, but I'm happy to edit for spelling and style. Subject to your approval, naturally.Timothy Usher10:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IPT, do you really mean that you took the nonsense on goy or "mlechcha" (as you spelled it) or the papal decree from the Catholic Encyclopedia? If so, point me where you got it. If you want to expand on the issue of infidels in Christianity, do so, but please learn how to cite sources and what sources are reliable. If you want to write on the use of the word kafir, please do so in the respective article, but again remember to cite reliable sources. IslamOnline does not qualify as such. PecherTalk11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "Goy can refer to Non Jews", but goy is an ethnic term, not religious one and not an equivalent of "infidel"; a Jew does not become a goy by converting to another religion. Ditto for mlekka as "outer barbarian", not "infidel". You were right: I indeed left out the link to IslamOnline, so I have removed it now. Interestingly, that response on kafir is one of a very few instances when IslamOnline guys talk business. Frankly, I would just reserve all the detailed discussion of kafir, including its derogatory connotations, for the article on this term, but let's see what others think. PecherTalk12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goy, "gentile", and mlekka have nothing to do with that article, as it has already been explained both on the article's talk page and above. Simply repeating your point "I want them there" will not get you anywhere. PecherTalk13:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101th time: goy and mlekka are ethnic terms. If you have any sources translating these words as "infiedel" or "unbeliever", show them; otherwise, please stop bringing up this worn-out point. PecherTalk13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of that ad nauseam argumentation strategy and will not respond to any further arguments on your part that do not involve citing reliable sources. Regards, PecherTalk14:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dude, I have to agree with Pecher. Goy and mlekka shouldn't be there as they don't mean the same thing, and, while Infidel is a Catholic term, there were some factual errors in that part of your proposed text. non-Baptism in the Catholic church isn't what makes one an Infidel -rejection of Jesus does -otherwise Protestants would be Infidels and they are not, they're "heretics" or "schismatics". Also, because everyone is born sinful in that theololgy, saying "simply being an infidel does not imply that one is a sinner" is completely wrong. Armon13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Late, I'm exhausted, and lots of RL work to do tomorrow. I'll do what I can -- but you know that you may not agree with my thoughts on the matter. I'm one of those infidels myself. Not a Woman of the Book, either. Zora11:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep moving it to James I of Ireland? Firstly, James was most famous for his work in England. Secondly, he's referred to as the King of England chiefly in pretty much every book you'll ever find on him. Thirdly, he only inherited Ireland after he came to the throne of England from Scotland, so it especially doesn't make logical sense. If anything, somebody who would argue for it to be moved to 'King James of Scotland' would have more basis. The title James I Of England is quite suitable nevertheless, so please do not change it. Schizmatic14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many kings and queens have more than one title, but we don't have "Victoria of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Empress of India" and so forth, or "George I of Great Britain and Hanover". At least there should be consensus before abrupt page moves. And the second move to just "James I of Ireland" smelled like WP:POINT. -- Curps14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As posted above, many historians hold his English title in the highest regard due the controversy of his reign. Besides, the articles title is for convenience more than anything else. Schizmatic16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
England is in the 1st and 4th quarters of the royal standard; this is directly related to the monarchical style. James is known as James I in England, Ireland ( and France), while known as James VI in Scotland. Consider this: the majority of the population, wealth and political focus is in the other two (or three) lands. Please try to avoid unilateral page moves, of this importance. IP Address19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
So we have four display options now. Waiting for feedback from Tom harrison on naming conventions, though, so don't use them yet. But when we have the green light, these should prove pretty useful.Timothy Usher03:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your request for some mediation with regard to the above page. I have taken the case and will help out where I can. I have reviewed the article and edits, and (as shown by a recent block, Hal-Byrne has breached the 3RR and has not justified or commented on any of her edits. Although there are references in the section concerned, while I'm not doubting the accuracy of the section, they don't actually cover all of the points made. Are you able to provide references for her relinquishing the whip, or for the content of the second paragraph? I will contact Hale-Byrne and ask her to engage in dialogue to try and resolve the issue. In the meantime, can I suggest that you refrain from reverting edits on the article in question so we can avoid an edit war ongoing through the discussion. I appreciate this may lead to the article not being complete in the short-term, but it may facilitate a solution. KcordinaTalk08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the page in question. Mediation is a waste of everyone's time. Hal-Byrne and his/her numerous sock-puppet vandals need to be banned. Armon13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Baroness Cox of Queensbury relinquisjed the whip after a disagreement over a European Union Matter. To suggest that there is any link between Lady Caroline and the BNP is outragious. The critical section is riddled with slander and I intend to raise this with the Lady herself ASAP. The above is a statement of fact. I might add that Baroness Cox never asked for a Wikipedia page and perhaps it is best just to get rid of it entirely. Now are we going to ban everyone in the internet cafe just, because they defend her? Are we all to be called sock-puppet vandals. We have not called anyone names. I need some crisps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gung (talk • contribs)
You've done some excellent detective work on the talk page. Unfortunately, I'm too tired to address it at the moment. Hopefully, I'll get to it tomorrow. —Viriditas | Talk09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Simonapro's comments to a section below your comments to differentiate from your own. If any responses are made to your source requests, they should be made in the following section. —Viriditas | Talk02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I haven't looked into this very carefully but I don't think this template is eligible for speedy deletion. May I suggest you try WP:TFD? At least you should avoid putting a speedy deletion tag into a template that is included by several articles, it places them all to CAT:CSD which makes a mess. jni14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this doesn't hold for singular weasel problems in a long article or subsection. This inline tag pinpoints the problem, so editors do not need to search the whole paragraph. For example, compare [citation needed]. --Unweasel14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if I may say so. Weasel words signalling has a comparable merit. The [weasel words] tag relates to to a specific statement in the body of a text which contains weasel language. It is put up with a view to rewording the text within a given time. It is part of the process of verifying the contents of Wikipedia. It is an official policy of Wikipedia to eliminate weasel language.--Unweasel14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it possibly start a revert war. A tag starts the discussion at the talk page and pending the outcome of the debate alerts readers that the text must be interpreted with caution. --Unweasel14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is after the words "The largest religious gathering on Earth" in the article and the BBC article says "What is probably the largest human gathering in history has been imaged from space." Thus the citation does fit the article. -- Jeff300015:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article also connects the image to the event. The other citations remove the need for the word "probably." -- Jeff300015:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, what future event? The BBC article clearly shows the same image as the image in the article, connecting the image to Kumbh Mela, and states "What is probably the largest human gathering in history has been imaged from space." Then the following citation says [31] "Maha Kumbh Mela 2001 - the largest human spiritual confluence so far." NewScientist, which is also a reliable source shows the same figure, thus connecting it to the event and says "The largest human gathering ever has been photographed from space by a high resolution imaging satellite" [32]. That's enough reliable sources to connect the image to the event, and substantiate that it is the largest religious gathering. -- Jeff300015:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.
b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display. Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context.
c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.
2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.
3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.
Hello my wiki-friend. My earlier experience of working and inter-acting with you was perhaps not of your liking, and left a bitter taste. I am now recovering from a serious ailment, and would avoid talking to editors who believe in lowering the credibility of wikipedia, and pouring "the deluge of nonsense that threatens it (wikipedia) every day" - to quote SlimVirgin. You are competent enough and perhaps do not require any suggestion. However, please remember Wikipedia do not tolerate nonsense in the long run, and editing wikipedia is a privilege and not a right. Thank you and good bye.
Please get rid of the habit of deleting comments from your talk pages - that is isnsulting to others. Thank you. May God Bless You! --Bhadani12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that some quotes could be in order, but I am slightly concerned with the quality of said quotes. For one thing, the last quote is a) translated quite poorly (it's a bit beyond my translating abilities), and b) considering another Danish politician, rather than considering a group of people at once.
I think I would replace said quote with for instance this one:
The Social Security Act is passé, because it was appropriate for a Danish family tradition and work ethics and not for Muslims for whom it is decent to be economically supported by others, while the wife gives birth to a whole lot of children. The children benefit cheque is abused, since a foreigner gains record earnings due to a small dozen of children. Mass rapes punishments must be changed, because the problem only has arrived with the many acts of vandalism by the anti-social second generation immigrants.
Pia Kjærsgaard's weekly letter (February 25, 2002)
Or this one:
"With its uncontrollable population growth, oil financed terrorism and growing fanaticism the islamic world is a growing threat to the peace and to the West. Not only do we have the possibility to remove this threat, we have a duty to do so."
Morten Messerschmidt, Ekstra Bladet, 12th of Febuary 2003.
Both quotes are available on wikiquote under Pia Kjærsgaard and Morten Messerschmidt, respectively. I am working to expand the DPP section on wikiquotes, albeit not in high speed. The Jesper Langballe and Søren Krarup sections will have very blunt quotes on them eventually. I just have to do the translation slow enough to not lose all faith in humanity. --Jakob mark12:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just feel it is a quote where you don't have to explain the circumstances to grasp the point. Besides, badmouthing other politicians is not comparable to badmouthing a whole population IMO. Hope we agree on this, after all, that's why I posted here instead of just picking a quote to replace the other one with :) --Jakob mark13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, would it not seem prudent to edit images like this to remove the web addresses and phone numbers found on them? Although I do understand a need for un-censored portrayal of information on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem very proper to leave such info there and thereby further the goals of such organizations, no? If you do blur out the infomation please make a note of having done so on the image page so that those viewing it can have full disclosure about what it is they are viewing. Netscott06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you are not allowed to edit the image, if possible I would recommend you find similiar images that don't have such information so readily available for utilization. Netscott09:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you cordially to participate in the Band Baja Do event on my talk page. Please come there and enlighten and enliven the show. Thanks. --Bhadani08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly note: In view of the mental stress under which one of the invitees is presumed to be under, I have decided to indefinitely postpone the event named Band Baja Do. Thank you!
The next event to be organized shall be “Adhajal Gagari Chalakat Jaye”” (a proverb of Hindustan, meaning that the half-filled pot spills more fluid) that is, Empty vessel sounds much!! [33]. The time and venue shall be notified in due course. Thank you.
You've probably seen this before - but the Taj Mahal page has been under attack from Hindu fundamentalists (and I mean fundamentalists, these people are insane) claiming that it is 'actually' an 11th-century Vedic temple. I have cleaned it up a bit and removed the most egregious assertions, but I would like to see the 'P.N.Oak' section removed altogether - a link can be provided to his loathsome book on which his followers can explain his 'research', if necessary. His assertions have nothing to do with the Taj really: he is simply trying to use it as a political issue to attack Indian Muslims. Have a look at what I've written on the Talk:Taj Mahal page and tell me what you think. Sikandarji09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Irishpunktom. I reverted your edit, the reasons are stated here. If you decide to revert my revert would you please care to explain the reasons on the discussion page? I am not going to start an edit war over this. Nouly18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, Irishpunktom. To me it is neither satisfactory nor convincing. But then again: The argument we're having has a prototypical quality. Prototypical for what though I'm not sure. My response is here. I moved your response there too in order to keep the discussion together. Nouly16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom, I made you your very own userbox Pilgrim. You can find it here. Hope this settles the matter. If you need advice on or help in improving it aesthetically, drop me a line. Nouly18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Below is one that I think is a bit more appropriate but I'm inclined to agree with you Irishpunktom that the general User pilgrim userbox should not have the iconography of any particular religion.
Irishpunktom, would you kindly perform a good faith self-revert on this template? It's true that the image that is part of it currently isn't religiously neutral but neither is the one you keep replacing it with. Based upon this fact until a more neutral image is utilized the template should remain with the image that it was originally created with. Netscott13:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that image isn't the best but it certainly is much better in terms of neutrality at this point. If you'd upload and replace the current image with that for now.. I think that would be agreeable. Netscott14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hello, i remember your username from somwehere. (found it in the deletion log).
Now, how to list a page for deletion (into the log)?
I do not have much experience with it.
You're welcome. I also blocked the IP address for 48 hours. [34] I'd have blocked for longer, probably indefinitely, had it been a user account, but we're not allowed to do that with IP addresses in case they're shared. SlimVirgin(talk)16:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me
!!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.
Hello Irishpunktom. Right now, I am working on the article Kizilbash and I need some information about the Persians in Mughal-India. Do you have any good links/sources?! Soem information about Bayram Khan would be really great. Feel free to add your information to the article.
Did the link say anything about race or color? Fact is that it didn't. It was a angry response to the islamic hate-campaign against my country and our freedom of speech. So just quit making up such silly excuses for your violations of policy and ridicules accusations against me. -- Karl Meier09:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link didn't mention foreigners. It mention the islamic world and it's violent campaign of hate against freedom of speech and Denmark. I don't see any problem with speaking out against this islamic aggression against my country and my democratic rights, and surely it isn't a good excuse for you to make such ridicules accusations and personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier09:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is talking about the islamic world, where Danish embassies has been burned down, and where people has been killed because of their Islamic leaders extreme hate towards our democratic rights, that include publishing cartoons. Such behavior, and the behavior of the "danish" imams that has been travelling the islamic world, to seek support for their agenda, which obviously is to hurt and damage the country that (ufortunatly) at the moment choose to provide them with visas and what not, deserves an angry response. Also, where does the link say anything about all "foreigners"? As I already said, it mentioned the islamic world, where these acts of aggression has occured. Another thing that I might mention is that all of the imams that traveled the islamic world to promote their anti-danish agenda, did not have a foreign background. One of them, Abdul Wahid Pedersen, was Danish. -- Karl Meier11:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that "it" has nothing to do with all Immigrants. We got hundreds of thousands of Immigrants that support our democracy and freedom of speech here in Denmark, and we don't have Chinese, Indian or Zimbabwean immigrants travelling their home countries, in an attempt to rally support for violence and hate-campaigns against our country. The link mention that the problem is the islamic world, and that I believe is very accurate. -- Karl Meier11:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does it specificly mention the islamic world? Also, it is obviously a commment to a conflict where some people that has imigrated from the islamic world, and has recieved a lot of things from Denmark and the Danish people, attack Denmark and Danish interests. Such an attack on the Danish people deserve a strong response. -- Karl Meier11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've now asked you twice to stop clogging my user page with silly questions such as, "how is it kicking someone while they're down to post a trolling, taunting, gratuitous comment on the user page of a blocked user (i.e., FairNBalanced)"?--Mantanmoreland14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your comment -- no, I don't have to assume good faith when I see an editor post a taunting remark on the user page of an editor who is fighting to remain on Wikipedia. You did so just below comments on his latest troubles. Your clogging my user page with still more trolling does not improve the situation. Have a good day.--Mantanmoreland14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
) 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
??? ??? ??? 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
!!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.
(Confident)
(Mocking)
(Hysterical)
(Hurt)
(Very Sorry)
(Sleepy)
(You are Nive)
(I am not happy)
(No Comments)