User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

hello

i noticed that you've been working on the Islam article of late, and that your edits generally tend to be of rather high quality. spurred on by User:Dev920's rather (and sometimes, i daresay, justifiably) pessimistic outlook, i would certainly like to bring the Islam article up to GA standard- and after a subsequent peer review- even up to FA. it is a concern that such an article isn't amongst the featured articles yet, especially considering the times in which we live where it's vital that these kinds of articles are of the highest quality. so i wanted to ask if you could help out with providing more inline citations to various portions of the article where there are large chunks of text with sparse referencing/citations. i think this is probably the most important issue to deal with right now. Beit Or was saying how the article doesn't go into much detail about the history of the expansion of Islam. i have the islam article of encyclopedia of islam (online) and it talks about two main issues: the meaning of the word islam and the historical development and expansion of the religion, so the latter is an aspect i will try to improve with regards to the article. thank you. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't consider myself any good with templates, i'd think a kind of template automatically placing books into the refs section when they're used would be out of my range anyway :) i've always thought that the conventional way to present refs is by giving the name/ year/ page no. (i.e. Lewis (1992) pp. 12-14) in the footnotes and then providing all the details in the biblio section. i wasn't able to do that with Cambridge History because the book itself has different authors for different sections so i thought mentioning the bk title itself would help avoid confusion. i may alter this at some time though. nonetheless all the refs should be standardised in the conventional way, it makes things look a lot neater. thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the much needed re-organisation of the bibliography section, especially as it must have been rather tedious. ITAQALLAH 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NAS

Please stop your talk page aggression on NAS. You've barely contributed to the article, and all your posts seem to be attempts to bait others who do. Enough, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But please don't assume good faith of anonymous editors and fail to assume it of editors who've been around for several years. The anon's personal opinions about other potential articles don't belong on the talk page, regardless of his intention. We have to take steps to prevent people posting their personal views there, or else we'll end up like Usenet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Winterval(s)!!!! (12-22-06)

Oh, the weather outside is frightful!... But I hope wherever you you are, that it's warm and delightful! : ) —Randfan!!

Dear Itsmejudith/Archive 3, I wish you a very, very merry Winterval! And since I don't know which you celebrate, I hope you have/had/will have a very happy Holiday!. Hope you and your family have a magnificent day, or series of days! You might wanna install the "SaucyMillionaire" font to see this correctly. Cheers, mate!:) —Randfan!!

God (or your deity/deities) bless you and your family! —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

-I was planning to hand these out on the 22nd of Dec. but things got in the way.... Happy holidays! —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

• 
  Click on image if unseen. You are a "light of the world", Judith. Nina Odell 12:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Invite

Diez2 16:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Effulgent thanks for joining the Religion Project!

You have no idea how grateful I am to have you join the project! There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of articles out there that could use the attention of someone who has knowledge of specific belief systems. Having someone who knows both Islam and Taoism is an incredible benefit to us. Yeah, I know, I belong to both projects too, but all I do is really article assessment. I'm actually kinda embarrassed to say how little I actually know about anything outside my own little fields. However, if there ever should be anything which you think I would be of any assistance on, please feel free to let me know immediately. Also, I hope in time that the group will grow large enough that we will have people with some expertise in almost all fields. In any event, you are a more than welcome addition to the project and I hope that you enjoy being in it. Again, if you ever see any article or situation which might require the attention of myself (or, more likely, someone who actually knows a bit more) please feel free to let me or the other members know. Thanks again! Badbilltucker 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Belated happy wishes

Thanks for wishing me a happy solstice, the same good wishes to you on the winter holiday of you choice and all other days. The Local community web project i am part of as tech support, lost its phone line(don't ask!) and me and all our members lost our net connection for the last month. I've had to do lots of work over christmas to get it back together.Hypnosadist 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Help in dispute

Can you please sign in and help in mediation of Muhammad pictures. I think you have good reasoning capability and it can help in dispute. Talk:Muhammad/Mediation is reopened today. --- ALM 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hi Judith. You may or may not have something to say on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aminz; I may well too, even though in a way I would, as a friend of mine used say, sooner chew my arm off. Personally, for what it's worth, I would have thought an article-specific RfC would have been more appropriate, though unlikely to be any more productive. Palmiro | Talk 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The procedure is that anyone can write up a "comment", or, if a non-combatant to date, an "outside view", and then sit back and wait for other people to sign their names below it as "endorsements" thereof. Should the overall result massively favour the position of the original complainant, they can then use it in the future to thwack the complainee over the head with; otherwise, it remains meaningless. At least that's my understanding of how the process works, and perhaps I am being unduly flippant, dismissive or ill-informed. Palmiro | Talk 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

message

I've sent you an email. Palmiro | Talk 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you lend a hand with Canary Islands history

Hi Fayssal, how u doin? I found Canary Islands in pre-colonial times in the backlog of articles to wikify. It needs work. I would have thought that it should exist, if at all, as a sub-article of History of the Canary Islands. But History of the Canary Islands just redirects to Canary Islands. I don't know how to undo the redirect. Does all this make sense? Can you help out with the structure of articles and then I will work on them a bit. Thanks.Itsmejudith 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine Judith. Thanks for the note. I expanded a bit the lead and added references. I also redirected History of the Canary Islands to it. I'll work on the article later today. See you there. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

antisemitism page

Thanks for the clarification regarding attorneys, lawyers, et al.! I, at least, found it helpful. I can certainly understand making the edit you did, and then the misinterpretation that follows. We're working with tricky material here! Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 18:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion related articles

Hi, thanks for the tip on announcing this WikiProject Religion. I like checking out users who give nice comment (also those who give very negative comment btw) and saw some very nice userboxes, especially on race and kindness. I also noticed a "rotary phone" userbox, but is there one that reads : still uses a rotary phone, since I do use a 1940 Bell Company phone as working phone, it's lovely. Thanks for being inspiring Teardrop onthefire 13:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Omnipotence

it is indeed an important article, and spawns intriguing discussion. i will try to look around for some good reference material on this topic and chip in sometime. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonderfull!! Teardrop onthefire 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sincerety of Muhammad

Dear Judith,

That's a very good summary. Thanks Judith. All other (possible) details/explanations can be explained in the notes(?). Thanks very much. -Aminz 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith, Aminz, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Muhammad.Proabivouac 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

EUMC on NAS page

Hi, I see that you have expanded the context about the EUMC and so on. You also mention that this organisation has provided some statistics for the EU. I think that this should be added to the article. I read the referenced report, and it seems to me that the statistics really does not support many of the theories on the page (for instance the "leftist" component of NAS). I am not sure if my interpretation is correct. I feel the report is a bit evasive and vague. Thus, it is also hard to present it without getting in trouble. I'd like a second opinon, but I feel the some of the NAS article's Master Editors are too aggressive to be consulted. Have you seen their report? What is your opinion? pertn 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply. I agree with your long term goal of a more fact based historical article. With regards to the NAS article, I tried to write some lines with quotes from the EUMC report. [1]. To me it seems the statistics doesn't really support some of the basic ideas of NAS, but it is hard to reference it without doing OR (as I am sure I will be accused of!). Here was what I was thinking to write on the talk page:

-

I think the EU section could be more fact-based. I don’t really understand why the definition is included there, but never mind that. For instance we could write:

The report from the European Monitoring Centre (2006 update of the one referenced) notes that "[T]he available studies dealing with the perception of Jews within the EU indicate that there is little evidence supporting any change in antisemitic stereotypes." The report also notes that it is difficult to substantiate a change in profile of the typical perpetrators based on statistical data. In some European countries however the data may indicate a change in profile towards "'young muslims', 'people of North African origin' or 'immigrants'".

Other quotes: "In contrast to the extreme and far left, antisemitism forms a core element of the formation and networking of right wing extremist groups. " "The impact of left anti-Zionism to this wave [of secondary Anti-semitism] remains unclear."

-

I am not really sure what to to with this, but if you agree with my interpretation of the report, maybe you can formulate it better. The way it is now, I realise it will be summarily dismissed. pertn 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, something like that. If I'd known how, I'd award you a barnstar or something pertn 14:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice job on development control - many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Secularism

Hi ALM. I am so sorry that your experience here has put you off secularism. I am a supporter of secularism that allows people of all religions to live together, respecting each other's beliefs. There are not many countries where that happens all the time, but there are some examples of places where there have been religious conflicts that were eventually resolved. When I visited Hungary a lady said she could not understand why Protestants and Catholics were killing each other in Northern Ireland because in Hungary these Christian groups lived together with no animosity at all. Now in Northern Ireland they have started the difficult process of reconciliation. South Africa still has many problems but it was able to end the racial conflict and oppression without violence. This gives me hope for the world.Itsmejudith 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a Muslim obviously I prefer Islamic system and hopes that it will much more respect for all religions. I used to thought that secularism also have respect for all religion but after discussion at User_talk:Tom_harrison#Muhammad_pictures and on other places, now I feel secularism is changed (or changing). Most people in west do not care about their own religion any more, they might go to church but are practically atheist. Hence they also denying respecting other religions too on the name of secularism. We have example of France and other countries that are changing their laws. The latest discussion in England against Hijab might also interest you. Hence this is new direction things are going. --- ALM 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This lecture on Islam and secularism might be interesting. [2] Cheers, --Aminz 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am already 1/3 way of his lecture. However, Aminz I like much more lecture that use Quran and Hadith extensively (and do not give personal thoughts at all). The lecture looks like more a philosophy lecture. He has giving general ideas. We do not have to tell west that Islam support philosophical-secularism (not political philosophy). I do not the like the idea of pleasing west. Islam likes to respact other religion and that is the base idea for me. --- ALM 10:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharia prevents the construction of new churches and demands jizya for non-Muslims. Also proselytizing is a part of Christianity but this is a capital offense in an Islamic society. Similarly polytheism is illegal, and Aurangzeb enacted this in India for a while. Isn't insisting that religious minorities not be treated like other people disrespect? Also I think the Medinan verses of the Quran have a lot to say about Christians and Jews that couldn't be labelled respectful. Arrow740 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is true, as per the interpretation by most contemporary jurists, atleast to the best of my knowledge. TruthSpreader^reply 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe that Secularism is a contradiction to democracy. You can use any philosophy or any theory which has been developed in history by philosophers, *but* you are not allowed to use religion. On the other hand, I would like to see our Muslim countries to be democratic states of the last degree. Actually, Qur'an hasn't given us choice other than democracy (see 42:38). First four caliphs used Khilafa (a primitive tribal political system) to enforce this basic idea (I'd like a lot more space to explain this, from which I've understood this matter), and we are also expected to do so using modern institution based democratic model. Secondly, I believe that reigns of first four caliphs and most importantly of the prophet were the most democratic ones, one can even imagine. People could even question the head of the state and I know that when people started talking about revolts against Usman (ra) and it was told to him, he said that we will take action when they will take action. Hence, Islam has its punishments on the basis of actions and not beliefs, the only exception are the direct addressees of the prophet, whome God Himself decided to punish. TruthSpreader^reply 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought people like me who have a significant level of knowledge of Islam but reject it are believed to be damned eternally in your religion? Also in democracies freedom of religion is usually important. Secularism doesn't ban religion. Arrow740 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow! No one is damning you (you should see ^{[Quran 5:69]}). Secondly, my argument regarding secularism is with respect to implementation of laws and I was not talking about freedom. TruthSpreader^reply 00:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that a Meccan surah? Out of personal conviction and thoughtful deliberation I have arrived at the conclusion that Muhammad was a bad man and Islam is a lie. Now, I don't care that under Islam this would have me damned obviously. I don't understand why even direct addresses of the prophet would be punished. He couldn't convince his own tribe until he used force. Ali's uncle was killed and is damned because Muhammad failed to convince him of "the truth." In Islam there is the realization that people's spread of choices is at least partly pre-ordained, i.e. nature and nurture have a huge impact on thinkng. Ali's uncle never really had a chance, same with all the other people killed. Arrow740 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered on Arrow's talk page. TruthSpreader^reply 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, Thanks very much for listening to it. you are right. It is philosophical. I agree that we don't need to please others. But I have a point. It is a pretty modern idea that all we need could be found in the Qur'an and Sunna. This claim was created as a reaction to the claim that the "science is enough". If many Muslims believe in this today, it doesn't make it right or prove that it has been historically the case. On the contrary, the early Muslims were influenced by Egyptions, Persians, etc etc. In fact, Watt states: "In the course of this book much has been said about Muhammad's far-sighted political strategy and his social reforms. His wisdom in these matters is shown by the rapid expansion of his small state to a world-empire after his death, and by the adaptation of his social institutions to many different environments and their continuance for thirteen centuries." The advantage that the early Islam had was its simplicity and adaptability. That was the secret of success of Islam and its early wide acceptance. What do we have now: A rigid rock rather than a mobile fluid. ALM, you say we don't have to please the West but we are influenced by the West anyways. How? West says X, we just want to say *NO*(because Muslims are all-knowing, all-wise) and we invent Y and claim that Islam says Y. Not because we want to invent something but simply because we have to say something. --Aminz 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the biggest problem at the moment is our religious education. It is extremely defective, being run by clerics whose income can be threatened if they say something correct. Clergy has never been part of Islam, but as Aminz said, just as a reaction to west, we are going towards a clerical based society. Worst examples in the world are Iran, Saudi Arabia and X-Taliban regime. And interestingly, Pakistan and Indonesia seems to have a potential to go towards this path as well. I believe that if anyone of could serve our nation (umma) better, the best place would be the education. TruthSpreader^reply 03:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Education is certainly important. And you are right: The clergy institution has never been a part of Islam(that we don't need the presense of clergy for marriage and pilgrimage for example)--Aminz 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To ALM, one point. Soroush (in min 56-57 I think) does say that he is not using secularism in a honorific sense, which is intrinsicly good or bad. He says that his lecture is just a descriptive one. Completing my comment above, Soroush says he hasn't seen anyone in the past who has said that you can find everything in Islam and you don't need whatsoever to look outside Islam. He says this idea was first introduced by Ikhwan al-Muslmin who said: "Al-Islam huwa al-hall" (Islam is the solution for everything). Minute 58- Minute 1:04.--Aminz 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Even "Islam is a complete code of life" is not a hadith or Qur'anic verse, but rather a new phenomenon immerged in Islamic society. And people consider it sacred more than Islam's original teachings. TruthSpreader^reply 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my talk page has been blessed! Thanks both of you for your contributions, which I'll reply to by email to save wikispace.Itsmejudith 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Judith, I am so sorry for my delay in replying to your email from which I learnt a lot. Sorrrrryyyy! Just wanted to say that I am very happy that I had the chance to know you. --Aminz 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Personally I would have done a cleanup tag, not wikify, because "This article covers:" is what the table of contents is for... not an opening. (Wikipedia:Lead section) I just posted that on his/her talk page. But, something does need to be done about that lead. gren グレン 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bi-polar

Thank you for your words on my talk page. :) I never really thought it was a bad thing to be manic-depressive, but sometimes people would look at me really weird when they found out—it's good to know that doesn't happen here. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well wishes

Hi Judith, thanks. I've just been very sick from a combination of a bad cold and worsening PH. My meds have been adjusted accordingly, and I hope they work. I do seem to feel a little better and not so out of breath. Right now, I just want to avoid medical articles when I'm on Wikipedia--I've spent enough time in the hospital, and I could use a break from thinking about it! :) --Kyoko 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know yet. Maybe a novel or something. My concentration has just been completely gone over the last month, so I haven't read anything substantial. I was reading War and Peace, but I got distracted by other things. We'll see. --Kyoko 09:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try. And you should have an e-mail from me. --Kyoko 09:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad picture mediation

They have your name under section named "What you would do...". Can you please go and fill the place in front of your name. Thanks. --- ALM 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

courriel

Salut Judith, ça va? Je t'ai envoyé un message avec des liens que j'espère te sera utiles. --Kyoko 19:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null

I tried looking at diffs and I didn't clearly see two different sides. But, it is much harder with relatively non-notable people to evaluate what is important and should be included. I think it's almost impossible not to define what is important by virtue of what we include. As to whether or not we should be refuting him: no. I don't know the situation well enough but I'll take a few stabs. 1) The medical community mostly tries to discredit him and they think he's a quack. 2) His ideas mostly don't conform to any normal standards. I personally don't like "criticism" sections because, in terms of NPOV, what is their opposite. It almost seems to me like we have a criticism section and the main body section is praise. I don't like either when it's written "Gary Null believes X but everyone else says he's wrong. Gary Null believes Y but people call him an idiot for it". If it appears that the goal of the article is to disprove him then it is problematic. You end up having to explain the conventional view of medicine to show that he is not in tune with it which takes up more space than it does about him. I don't think this really answers your question or helps... gren グレン 04:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

German exodus from Eastern Europe

Hi,

Thanks for your help with the "Background" section to this article. Since you're new to this article and the topic seems to be new to you as well, I'm curious how you stumbled on it.

--Richard 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Eutychianism

Thanks for the reminder, I've been distracted by other tasks since happening on this one last month. I will see what I can do with the artilce as far as rewriting/wikifying in the next few days. -- Pastordavid 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

But his date of birth and death are totally unknown. It isn't even certain whether he has ever really existed. Kkrystian 19:53 (UTC+1) 11 January 2007

Thanks. Kkrystian 22:33 (UTC+1) 11 January 2007

Isn't it enough to write that he's legendary? Kkrystian 20:39 (UTC+1) 12 January 2007

Yes, I think your solution is good. Kkrystian 13:54(UTC+1) 13 January 2007

Did this article get a GA status? Because I took a short Wikibreak and I don't know what's happened to it. Krystian 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sourcing

hello Judith, i wanted to know if you could help get cites for some of the good contributions you made in Islam#Science_and_technology. i added and sourced a paragraph in that section.. i think the content issue for the sect has been dealt with so i got rid of the stub tag, all that's really needed are some cites for the first two paragraphs. i thought i'd ask you as you probably have a better idea of the best sources to use anyway. thanks ITAQALLAH 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

this stuff is probably covered in Cambridge History of Islam (vol. 2B). i've been using another text about science in medieval Islam (uni. of texas press), and i believe there are chapters related to those two paragraphs (i think, not entirely sure actually). i'll be sure to look around though. thanks ITAQALLAH 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [3] futurebird 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliff

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for your words of support on his talk page regarding what happened to him - the definition of what this barnstar means, "being nice without being asked". Thanks. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sugar

Hi Judith,

Can you please mention the page number for the reference you added to the Islam article. Thanks --Aminz 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Judith,

Just wanted to say hello. :P --Aminz 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, have a very nice and sunny day!!! Cheers, --Aminz 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Judith!

Kudos to your great style of writing, Question: Is it common knowledge that 'The Daily mail' is not reliable? (re: 'forced conversion in UK') Historianism 06:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Brits in gitmo

There are no british passport holders in gitmo. But five ex-residents (ie foreign nationals who had visa's) still remain in gitmo, this is a very important distinction, although those in the UK that want them returned to the UK don't see it that way. Hypnosadist 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the information about these people and their status should be added to wikipedia, probably in a sub-page. Do you think this is a good idea and do you have any links about them. Geo Swan also has a lot of info so i'll ask him if you think we should create this article. Hypnosadist 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of WP:BAH - your opinion, please.

I have had the idea of expanding and renaming WikiProject Brighton to become WikiProject Sussex - this would not exclude people with a particular interest in, say, Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Midhurst, Pulborough, Billingshurst, Horsham, Crawley, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, Lewes, Eastbourne, Hastings, Rye, Winchelsea, etc. - all places worthy of a WikiProject - and I'm not sure that having WP:BAH as a sub-project of WP:Sussex would work. I feel that we are being too exclusive - we could attract new members this way. What do you think? - Vox Humana 8' 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddy

I've been trying to defend Reddy from unexplained and unsourced edits by Yashwanthkarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he's indefatigable. I'm going to try to get some more admin help, but in the meantime, I can't revert his edits again, as I'd be violating 3RR — and his edits are disruptive and unsourced, but not vandalism strictly speaking. If you feel able to, having looked at the situation, I'd be grateful if you could revert them until I can get help. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes — we seem to be in roughly the same time zone; by the time you'd seen my message, I'd also returned to edit.

If you have reasons for retaining some of the edits, by all means do; it's only his insistence on them without explanation (or, where relevant, sources) that's been the problem. The "feudal" has been there pretty well from the beginning, I see, and it's possible to be a landlord in a non-feudal system — I'm one myself. Still, if you think that it raises problems that can't be dealt with in the text, fair enough; you're clearly far more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. I've just been watching it from the point of view of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not expertise.

I did have second thoughts about the minister; as a general rule, though, if they don't meet the notability requirements for articles, they don't meet them for lists (that's the only criterion that makes it possible for these lists to be kept within bounds; think of what this one used to be like...). He appears on another list here, which might just about make it OK given his job. I've started an article about him (it has to be said, though, that there's precious little about him on the Internet; he doesn't seem to have been a very active politician...). I've replaced the banker under his full name (the link had no spaces, which is why it was red; with them, it's a redirect to the relevant article). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just Internet access that's the problem, I think (I edited for years without broadband). Knowledgeable people of any nationality would be a plus, but Wikipedia puts off most such people; I rarely edit articles in my field of expertise, because the anti-expert, pro-half-educated-loudmouth ethos makes it too frustrating. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hi this is yashwant with respect to reddy i would like to mention that

he was the president of india from 1977 to 1981 Sanjeeva rededtwas speaker of the Lok Sabha from 1967 to 1969

refrence http://www.congresssandesh.com/AICC/history/presidents/neelam_sanjeeva_reddy.htm

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Those few who still explain in edit summaries what they're doing seem to me to deserve recognition. Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

--Aminz 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am doing fine. Thanks. How are you doing? I hope everything is going well. :) --Aminz 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a good night. Please check your email tomorrow morning. Cheers, --Aminz 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reddy

hello itsmejudith

the list of notable reddy's shows people how reddy's have dominated the politics of Ap and South India. so shortening it down would be a embarassment to them, so i'd rather leave it there. but anyway thanks for your concern...looking forward to hearing from you....Thanks again

hi this is yashwant with respect to reddy i would like to mention that

he was the president of india from 1977 to 1981 Sanjeeva rededtwas speaker of the Lok Sabha from 1967 to 1969

refrence http://www.congresssandesh.com/AICC/history/presidents/neelam_sanjeeva_reddy.htm

Hello, Yashwant. Replying here because I'm not sure if you have a talk page. Go ahead and put him in the national politics section. It is sourced factual information and should be in the article. I know that people want the list of notable Reddies to show how people from that caste are politically dominant, but that is WP:POINT. Wikipedia is not the forum to play out Andhra Pradesh politics. Itsmejudith 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply from G-Dett

Thanks for your kind note Itsmejudith. You bring up important points regarding MPACUK and the all-party inquiry. In fact, I am not coordinating the informal mediation on the NAS page; I agreed not to on account of Slim's personal objections, as I believed her participation was more important than mine. I've made my positions generally known as well as offering concrete suggestions to Mackan and CJ. You could do the same, or if you like I can pass it on for you. All best, --G-Dett 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

you may be interested in this discussion

Hi Judith, as someone who has expressed interest in the past about extra-encyclopedic support structures, I thought you might be interested in the discussion found here: Wikipedia talk:Responding to suicidal individuals. I hope you're well. --Kyoko 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sharia image: woman who got 50 lashes

Judith, discuss the image on talk. I created a section on Sharia. See you there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont remove the image again without discussing it on Talk. thanks --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help ?

Dear Itsmejudith, can you please help in rewriting and improving User:ALM_scientist/Is_wikipedia_Anti-Islam (please ignore it title we are looking for new title). I will be very thankful :) best wishes. --- A. L. M. 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its main purpose is dispute about Muhammad images in article like Muhammad, Black stone. I think those images will soon be part of Mecca, Islam and other articles. It is a preparation for an arbitration case. Please feel free to change its name or remove things that in your opinion are losing our focus on dispute. I know that I can trust you -:). Thank you for your help. regards. --- A. L. M. 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed its name Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. You can obviously still change it name to whatever your wish. Hope you will help me in improving the article and arbitration. --- A. L. M. 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "Most non-Muslim editors are nice people and they do not want to offend people of any religion". I used to think like that but lately I cannot think it any more. For example I prove on many with references that Muhammad pictures are prohibted in Islam and represent minority tradition. However, still they insist on having pictures, which is against WP:Undue weight policy. Right? Please help in solving this dispute and improving page. I will appreciate your help. with best wishes. --- A. L. M. 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that you will help for long time to come and together we will be able to end this dispute. I am looking forward for your continue support. best regards, --- A. L. M. 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, judith is right - non-Muslim editors are not there out to offend Muslims. The primary purpose is to build a useful encyclopedia. Everything is secondary. For example, if I hate geckos, it doesnt mean I should go around in the gecko article trying to delete its pictures. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Judith, I lost your support again. I will file arbirtation case in a week and need some support with good people like yourself. :) --- A. L. M. 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Cohen

Hi Judith,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that as soon as I get free. Cheers, --Aminz 09:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Khatir says that an Indian king saw the split of the moon. Not so relevant to the discussion though :) --Aminz 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Muhammad

Hi Judith,

I think this article is not hard to be made a GA article :) --Aminz 10:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Jesus

Thanks, I'll take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reddy

"Hi Mel

"I think you may have been wrong to revert the edits by the now disappeared editor. They all just weakened claims that were unsourced in the first place. The editor also left a message on the talk page that the article is a disgrace. He is right, but all we can do without having access to relevant sources like newspaper articles or sociological studies that are probably not distributed outside southern India is to radically condense the article. 'Caste or social group' (one of the edits) must be more accurate than 'caste'."

Thanks for your message (and sorry not to have replied earlier). The trouble was that there was no way to tell (unless one's an expert) which if any of his edits were good and which weren't. For example, the non-expert knows that a caste isn't a social group; while it might be the case that the disjunction is correct here, therefore, it could also be an attempt to add a PoV to the article. Without a source or some explanation, I could't tell — and it would be obscure at best to add {{fact}} to that. I agree with you that the comment on the Talk page is correct — but again, it could have been left either by a disinterested editor who understands how bad the article is from a Wikipedia/acadmic/NPoV angle, or someone who simply feels that it misrepresents his position or views (and we both know that these articles attract more than their fair share of the latter).

When I get the chance I'll go back through his edits and see if I can find grounds for reinstating any of them. Otherwise I think that you're right: radical condensation is the only way. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism. I have noticed that you have edited the page recently. If you are a party, please visit the above link and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. Thanks --Aminz 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Your input would be appreciated here [4]. Cheers, --Aminz 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this article?

Hi, could you please take a look at the article on Persecution of Christians -- I'd like your opinion on how to work with certain editors who recently removed a long-standing section on Persecution in Israel. Please feel free to comment as needed. Thanks, Majoreditor 04:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikification

Please note that single equals signs should not be used for headings in Wikipedia articles; see nesting. Cheers --Pak21 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught it. Looking back through your contributions, it's obvious you know this :-) Keep up the good work... Cheers --Pak21 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reddy

Thank you. The process including editing, citations and cleanup will take some more time.Kumarrao 06:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

re Deir Yassin massacre

Hi Fayssal!! Are you as an admin empowered to unprotect the above? It needs wikifying - and other work too. Important article. Cheers. Itsmejudith 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Judith. Yes i am but it is good practice to contact the admin who protected the article. He's is the one who can better decide if all disputes have been solved at the talk page. If not the second option would be WP:RFPP. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up�} 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the reorganization of Reddy article. I shall fill in the gaps, add a few more references and polish the article. Kumarrao 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex Please have a look at and join the above! --Vox Humana 8' 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

hey there

Thanks for adding some reason to the Muhammad current debate. Your user-page is messed up with stuff over-lapping other stuff, and if I knew how to fix it, I would. I would if I could, but I don't so I won't. Stay cool Unflavoured 08:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad image

Your reason here was not a valid reason to delete the image. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Secondary antisemitism

Regarding your notes on my proposal at Talk:Antisemitism. I've followed Humus Sapiens' suggestion and prepared a stub at User:AldeBaer/Secondary antisemitism (workbench). I'd like to invite you to occasionally drop by and give me more notes, with special regard to the additional sources I've included. I appreciate any advice you might have. Also, please don't hesitate to edit that page or just tell me how I should tweak it before creating the article. Best regards, —AldeBaer (c) 01:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't wait and moved it to Secondary antisemitism. —AldeBaer (c) 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help and the kind words. —AldeBaer (c) 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC) :D

Islamic Azad University of Rasht

Hi Judith,

I can't see any persian text actually. Regarding its notability, well, it is not a public university. But it is a university anyways.

Cheers,--Aminz 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes, I like the flowers too! --Aminz 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. However the material does not make sense as it is; Muhammad's raiding provoked the war. It is for reasons like these that it is better to have access to the full text as Pro does (and I do in an older edition). Arrow740 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The new version is available online: [5] (last paragraph). And they were already in the state of war(Muhammad was a refugee in Medina). --Aminz 09:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Compressed Air Vehicles

A quick comment about your modifications. I've appreciate the direction so given, as this article was intended for general purpose and explaining the current status of research in France versus any kind of MDI advertising.

They announce performances about their models (Citycats) that might confuse people.

The purpose of developing VPAs and VPPs is precisely to create ultra light vehicles, with a limited autonomy.

Indeed, one must be aware that with one liter of compressed air while expanded, 1 kg only can be translated on a maximum distance of 10 m. Thus,

• with a total weight of about 200 kg,
• a coefficient of rolling of 14,
• an aerodynamic coefficient of 0.24 (both being far better than those of the Citycat),
• a tank of 20000 L (i.e. 2 bottles of 50L /200 bars) and
• an average speed below 30 km/h

you can (theoretically) reach only a maximum displacement of the vehicle of 20 to 40 km.

As I didn't want to argue about this throughout Wikipedia, I only wanted to give a better general description of the compressed air vehicles technology.

Cordially yours

Kern-83 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yellow badge and antisemitism

Hi Aminz

The yellow badge is definitely related to antisemitism, because of the Nazis. This is quite independent of how we interpret the medieval period. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely correct. But my point was that it was an anti-"jewish" practice when it was applied uniformly to both Christians and Jews. --Aminz 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that the other version of the article says that Jews were singled out for that (which is incorrect).--Aminz 10:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Judith, let's at least agree on some matters. We know that this wasn't specifically applied to Jews. The version Humus sapeins and Beit Or, and Karl Meier support says: "Over the ages, Jews were singled out... in ... Muslim countries..." That's obviously incorrect.

And we know that the enforcement of this was highly erratic but the intro doesn't say this. Instead it says "Over the ages, Jews were singled out..." That's also incorrect.

Whether it was antisemitism in the context of medieval Islam or not is a matter of definition. I suggest we first fix above matters which are not matters of definition but pure facts. --Aminz 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Viaduc de Millau

Are you the "translator of record" on this? I already made a couple of obvious correx before I realised it was an official translation project.

I'm a professional technical translator with knowledge of the Millau region. I could easily knock this off in an hour or so — but is it OK to just do it? Cheers. El Ingles 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on this. I'll do it on monday. El Ingles 23:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I now realise that Max Naylor is the "translator of record" if anyone is. In any case, I have completed the travail other than one final pass. El Ingles 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see promoting the Causse Rouge to article status. It doesn't have its own page in the French wiki, and in fact isn't even mentioned in the French wiki article on the whole Regional Natural Park. The Causse du Larzac has a very strong identity, because of the roquefort cheese and the acrimonious political protest movement of the '70s (in which I was a minor participant, incidentally). I agree about the Trivia section. Maybe it could just disappear one dark night... Cheers. El Ingles 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

My edit summary was enough to let you know what I was doing. It was redundant for me to leave a notice when you get a "new message" notification automatically when I edited your user page. Anyway, do what you like. If you want to accept a barnstar from an obvious sock puppet, its up to you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Sorry, can't really help you out since I'm in Europe. I may take a quick look but I wouldn't be able to keep up. These things last a while so if it's still on when I get back I'll help then :) ---gren グレン 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Why did you simply remove this material? Why didnt you just move it to the bottom, or reword it so your concerns are addressed? It looks like you too dont want the material on that page. Whats up with that? Isnt this all highly sourced and relevant material? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then add it back in right now. ALM has removed it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know where his post is. You did the change. Why dont you tell me why you removed it? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of diffs from BYT. Provide me the correct diff. Since you have made the change, you must stand behind your edit fully. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats your own response to other people's comments? When this incident has been reported by so many sources, what problem do you have with it? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You havent defended your edit in any way. In future, please dont make edits which you're not willing to explain or defend. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi Judith,

If you have time, I would be thankful if you could take a look at Arrow's representation of Peters and Robinson and Lewis here and here and here. This sort of representation reminds of another editor's taking quotes out of their context and this is becoming painful. --Aminz 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I hope your pain is not too severe, it has been demonstrated on the talk that you are misrepresenting sources in an attempt to show that I have done so, which I haven't. Arrow740 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Solar shingles

Can you import the image http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/images/photo_06286.jpg so that it can be used in the article about building integrated photovoltaics? It is from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/photovoltaics.html Since no credits are given it is PD per US DOE. Description is "These roof shingles are coated with PV cells made of amorphous silicon and look much like ordinary roofing shingles."

Solar Power

Hello... I've requested the solar power article's name be changed to solar energy. Do you support this change? Mrshaba 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation and our Appreciation for your Contributions

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Hi,

I have noticed that you have posted in the to do list on our old Wiki page about work to be done on the Reddy and Reddy dynasty. Just letting you know that your contributions are appreciated. I am also glad to see that those articles have expanded. Once again, you are most welcome to join our group in regards to improving Dravidian related articles. Regards. Wiki Raja 00:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Don't forget to check out our new Dravidian civilizations Portal! Wiki Raja 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but.

Sethie tried to delete that racist tripe from the antisemitism talk page but the editor insisted on reinstating it. I will not suffer the amtisemtism of others on any talk page. I think its a good idea to leave it on there for a while and give others a chance to read and share my anger at having had to put up with it in the first place. I will in fact go to Alice Bailey page and try to fix it and perhaps ruffle some feathers over there. But please do not expect me to sit idly by while racial epithets are being hurled at us from the grave by Alice Bailey. EVENTUALLY I will revert that offensive crap myself. You should do whatever you think is best. Thanks and have a nice day. Albion moonlight 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all read this latest quote from Eaglizard on the antisemitism talk page and you will see he or she does in fact know what I am referring to.

"Parenthetically, I'd like to assert that this is exactly the kind of attitude that makes discussion of antisemitism so damned volatile in the first place. I doubt Albion had ever even heard of Alice Bailey before this; now, he knows without question she was both a racist and "crackpot". Assuming he's never read even one of her books, I must assume he draws this conclusion because: someone else said so. And thus the circle of hatred continues... "

He or she claimed on my talk page to not know what I was referring to. All one needs to do to realize that many Jews find her to be an antisemite is google her with antisemitism and the perhaps racism. Eaglizard evidently doesn't buy that she was an antisemitic. Do you like to be referred to as residue ?? And what about these following anti Zionist remark from Ms Bailey.

"These Forces of Evil work through a triangle of evil, one point of which is to be found in the Zionist Movement in the United States, another in central Europe, and the third in Palestine. Palestine is no longer a Holy Land and should not be so regarded. "

Anti-Zionism is to many of us a form of racism. One thing that Eaglizard is right about though is that until today I had not heard of Ms Bailey. But when i did a little research I found out about her and thus think that User Sethie was absolutely correct when he deleted that garbage from the antisemitism talk page. A modicum of sensitivity on Eaglizards part would have prevented this whole mess. As I said before I will try to allow this argument to go to Bailey article but do not expect me or others to allow some apologist to stuff this antisemitic garbage down our throats without a fight. That is not going to happen. Albion moonlight 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Then.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Eaglizard is intent on bringing this to the Antisemitism page. I assume he thinks that he is being neutral. The fact of the matter is that if he insist on bringing this stuff to the antisemitism page he may find that there are those besides me and Sethie who find it to be offensive. I am going to wait and see if Sethie redeletes the offensive material. If he does then I will back him. If he doesn't then the dispute will in all likihood go back to where it belongs. It has always been as simple as that. I do not want to see the dispute continue on the antisemitism page. But if I am able to help stir things up over on the Alice Bailey page and gain consensus then perhaps Eaglizard will regret his insensitivity and refrain from the type of behavior he displayed up until this point. I will be civil but I can see no good reason not to defend my own position. Neutrality does not mean giving in. It means trying to see things from both sides. I can do that. Thanks for your time. Albion moonlight 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw Gee whiz and Kwork

As it turned out Eaglizard was not the one who posted those Alice Bailey quotes. It was a User named Kwork . Unfortunately the were no WIKI SIGNATURES of him or her on that section of the Antisemitism talk page. I am probably going to go over to the Bailey talk page like I said I would. But I am no longer at odds with Eaglizard over this matter. He or she has every right to defend Bailey. I now doubt that this matter is going to stain the antisemitism page any further. Albion moonlight 06:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The only thing I ever posted to the Antisemitism talk page is one short message yesterday. The extensive Alice Bailey quotes were from an editor of the Alice Bailey article who does not sign her name. I think it was appropriate for her to do that because it was in the context of a suggestion to expand the Antisemitism article to contain a section on New Age Antisemitism, with the Bailey quotes as an example of the nature of the problem. Kwork 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Judith

I allowed myself to get sucked in to the conversation over at the Bailey talk page. There is now a person who is on the arbitration committee over there. It is starting to get very interesting indeed. I don't know why he is there but he seems neutral enough so far. Anyway it was good to see you chirping in as well. So I just thought I would say hi. Albion moonlight 23:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar Power

Hello Judith,

I've been aggressively working on the solar power topic. Do you think my recent additions and consolidations are ok? Can you change the name to solar energy which I think is a more correct name for this topic? Mrshaba 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar Power edits explanation

We're basically discussing these changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_power&diff=81995864&oldid=81972643

I usually don't comment on edits too much, but since I'm asked to deliberate, here is what I think my motives must have been at the time. I basically felt the additions were too verbose, and lessen the quality of wikipedia. The first change was removing the sentence: "However, this is not the same as the amount of solar radiation (insolation) reaching the earth's surface." To me this statement seems self evident from the paragraph"

Solar radiation reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere at a rate of 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²). While traveling through the atmosphere, 6% of the incoming solar radiation (insolation) is reflected and 16% is absorbed resulting in a peak irradiance at the equator of 1,020 W/m� .

However it is a matter of taste what's self evident enough, and where Wikipedia's level of explanation should be, what's explained to death, and what's not enough explanation.

2nd, the dates, you already commented on - that was what got me started in the first place to undo edits, years highlighted like that felt bad faith to me, and influenced my overall decision.

3rd, as far as the Sunpower spam goes about 21% efficient solar panels, I'd like to call your attention to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nrel_best_research_pv_cell_efficiencies.png

Note that the highly efficient single crystal silicon panels are more expensive to produce than 8% efficient amorphous silicon cells, and in the end the $ cell cost per watt delivered what counts. Suppose a 7% eff. panel is 10x less expensive than a 21x eff panel, then the dollar per watt delivered for the 7% panel is 10x/(21/7)=3.3x cheaper than the somewhat more efficient but much more expensive 21% eff panel. The currently achievable solar-to-electric conversion maximum is 36% based on multijunction exotic materials (gallium arsenide, indium telluride, etc.) that are nowhere near the price ballpark of silicon, so their only reasonable use is for satellite and outer space applications, while most handheld calculators happily use 8% efficient amorphous silicon. Of course real estate value counts too, so the higher efficiency cells gain a little extra financial benefit, but not enough to tilt the dollar per delivered watt figure in most cases, especially for largescale cases such as deserts, where real estate is cheap. So these efficiency numbers should really be covering the range of 8-21%, and 15% feels like a happy medium, without putting all this noisy deliberation into the article itself at that 15% remark. Conciseness in the main article is a virtue, every single word must count. On talk pages, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter version" is acceptable to me.

Your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_power&diff=next&oldid=81971083 on this topic seemed unnecessarily verbose compared to the prior more concise sentences, and while surfing through your individual edits, especially highlighting years that add no value to the content, I got an overall impression that made me see what a full revert would do, and I didn't mind the result.

I apologize if this offended you, but these pages are dear to me. I agree a lot of these decisions are a matter of taste, but somewhere along the line one has to assert taste of style to keep wikipedia from deterioration, even when that taste hasn't been fully formalized, which is impossible to formalize for all cases anyway.

I would agree with a concise edit of the sort "resulting in a peak irradiance at sea level at the equator of 1,020 W/m�", which, now that I look at it, is meaningful content that my edits lost, because the paragraph isn't specific whether it's on top of Kilimanjaro or at sea level, and you're welcome to do the edit. In now way am I trying to bite your head off and keep you from modifying this article, you shouldn't take all this I wrote here to heart too much, I'm happy when people contribute, but that sometimes goes with other people just simply trumping out what you do, as it often happens to me too, and I just move on. No big deal. If you had reverted back my reverts, I would have waited for a 3rd person to pitch in and arbitrate, but as far as my first reverts are concerned, I do them boldly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillybilly (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 October 2006

Hkelkar

I wouldn't worry too much; when he's been identified he usually gives up that account. Hornplease 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite period

Hi Itsme. Re the article Archaseology of Israel (or in Israel, or whatever it is): to the best of my knowledge the terms used are Bronze Age and Iron Age rather than Canaanite and Israelite - tho I'm open to persuasion. Do you have the refs? PiCo 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding

On the one hand, I want to thank you for joining in on the work for Anna Wilding, and on the other, I feel sorry for you. The original writers of the article are very uh, defensive about it. But really, thank you. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, see what I mean? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to reply to my comment about inviting WP:ACTOR people in? Please note, this is not meant to say you not capable, because I think you are, but because they can't make the claim that those people are not knowledgeable. ANd having more eyes and editors on the topic can only do it good and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards, even if it offends the original authors. :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I meant replying on the Talk:Anna Wilding page, to show agreement, and to make it harder for them to suggest that that's inappropriate.  :) Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann Hari page, which I know you've helpfully intervened on in the past.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR81.129.156.202 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix ^talk 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Judith, I notice that at one time you went though Alice Bailey and lower-cased all the words in the headings ('cept the first ofc). I've seen this happen enough to understand it must be policy, but I haven't found where it's discussed. Do you know of a WP space page that goes into this? I'd really like to read some of the reasons why that consensus came about (since I don't really understand it). Or is it something simple like server mechanics? Anyways, if you happen to have a link to that, would you drop it off at my talk page? Thanks a bunch :) Eaglizard 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Judith! I had seen that in MOS, and a few others, but there's not much discussion about the why of it (I realize I meant to say a meta space page, not WP, where there'd be more hashing it out). But, it really looks like its just an adopted policy like most of the rest taken from Chicago, et al. More to the point, the little discussion I do see tells me that I'm just in a small minority for believing headings should make themselves visually distinct from the textual flow by using Title Caps. :) Not exactly worth wasting anymore time on this issue, I reckon. Thanks again! Eaglizard 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article

Hi Itsmejudith,

I can not remember if I mentioned it at the time; but I thought, and still think, that your edit for the Controversies section [15] was an excellent. With continuing discussion, and revisions, there still might be a chance to use it in the article.

I also want you to know that I appreciate your participation in editing and in discussion, even if you almost never agree with my views. I do consider your neutrality, in a polarized situation, very helpful, and I can live with being told I am wrong. Kwork 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam collaboration

Should we start a new Vietnam collaboration? In order to get more members into it, I wonder if we should send notices, the way the WPFOOD people send a newsletter to members each month. Badagnani 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar power

Judith,

While I disagree with you, I respect your position on the name change. I've asked Johnfos and Oldboltonian for their input but I would like to widen the audience. Where else could I post this question? Mrshaba 09:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion may get buried amongst the other comments.

It was a good suggestion but it likely to be argued that the article is more important than the co-operative spirit. Each faction claiming that there ideas are better. I think that Parsifal has a better Idea about what a balanced article is supposed to read like, But with that said I am not opposed to your idea. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think its an improvement. If it were left up to me I would hire Catherine Yronwode to write the whole article. She is a pro and her participation in that article and its discussion thus far has helped change the tide. : I must sleep now .... Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)