User talk:Matt57/Archives/2007/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Matt57. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reverts
Just a friendly reminder that you should discuss changes before a revert. It is the right thing to do. Padishah5000 07:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Matt. Thanks for your message. However you should be aware that removing sourced content is not vandalism or against policy here. It is not a valid reason to revert such an edit either. For example if a 100KB article, that was entirely sourced, needed to be trimmed down to 50KB, it would be impossible to do so without removing sourced content. Have a nice day. ΞΞΞ 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it doesn't necessarily need trimming., I was giving you an example. But your edit removes other sourced material - there's no need for me to revert you on that basis alone. By the way the "removing sourced content" thing is not something I read directly from policy here but from a senior admin. I don't remember which, but if I do, I'll be sure to let you know. ΞΞΞ 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It was either Tony Sidaway or Tom Harrison. Cheers. ΞΞΞ 01:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you revert again today in Islam then you will be reported for violating WP:3RR. --- A. L. M. 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Safiyya
Apologies, I have voiced my concerns once more with the article and tagged it.--Tigeroo 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
On watchlists
I'm not sure why you are under the misapprehension that a user's watchlist only shows the most recent edit to each article - try clicking the arrow next to each one. --Random832 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Behnam told me now how I could adjust the watchlist (if you check "expand" in options, it shows all the edits) - its better now and I might be using my built-in watchlist now however I still support those community built shared watchlists. I dont know why people have problems with these watchlists, they're just a link of articles and they're not going to do anything more than what I'll do with my own watchlist. Thanks though. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Flamgirlant
GOOD catch. I'm embarrassed that I knew this account was somebody's sockpuppet or reincarnation, but didn't think to check for Kirby's obvious tell-tales. - Merzbow 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, that was a good catch! I cant wait for my next one, heh. Its a lot of fun. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- He's gone off the deep-end this time: [1]. Arrow740 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Shia watchlist
Hi, Thank you for this list. May I improve the list. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also tried to imrove muslim scholars' watch list. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, by all means. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Mediation update
Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: your note
I said Homa Darabi was not a notable Iranian physician and psycologist. She was a notable activist though. Parvin's notability is secondary to Homa. Parvin Darabi is not notable enough to have her photo on the page. Neither her book is notable nor her activity (relative to people like Azar Nafisi, Shirin Ebadi and Marjane Satrapi). BTW, she lived shortly in Iran and is hardly considered Iranian. Sina Kardar 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I understand why you are interested in including Parvin's photo. As I mentioned Parvin lived most of her life out of Iran and she is hardly Iranian. Her book was not a success. It did not become a bestseller even in the west. She is not known in Iranian society. Azar Nafisi for instance lived and worked in Iran. Her book became bestseller and she is now a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Shirin Ebadi is another activist who lived almost all her life in Iran and got Nobel Prize. Parvin Darabi may be a notable American anti-Islam activist (Islamophobe) but not a notable Iranian woman. In any case I did not delete her name from the list, but having her photo is pushing for pov, as far as I can tell. Sina Kardar 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind
But I have taken the liberty of self-adding images of Muhammad to your page: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies--SefringleTalk 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for the addition! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, indeed.[2]Proabivouac 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have been keeping one eye on this article for a few hours now. You have called the incident in question (to wit) the Banu Qurayza event as having been properly cited. For the sake of argument with the next editor who would like to remove the reference to this so called massacre, would you please point out the citation which describes this event? It would be easier to have something to back up any argument with editors bent on removing the material here. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I've added the reference now and will be watching arguments on the talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of books critical of Islam
List of books critical of Islam, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of books critical of Islam satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books critical of Islam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of books critical of Islam during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Kirbytime
Good catch :). I am going to remind the admins there to block the IP address that he is obviously using too. -- Karl Meier 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks lol, I can detect Kirbytime from 6 miles away. Good point. Looks like he's using this IP but most likely it will keep changing slightly (thats why his checkuser came as "likely" and not confirmed) so the IP ban might not work. In any case he'll get into trouble and get blocked no matter what he does, so thats good. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
image in signatures
I have already gone through this with other editors. The rationale behind not using images in signatures doesn't really apply to my situation, and the page that you reference is not policy, it is a guideline. I am not obliged to follow it by any means. Cuñado 
- Talk 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look closely at the edit history of this one... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the headsup! Will do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Original research
Matt57, the issue of Banu Qurayza and other instances have already been discussed extensively on Talk:Historical persecution by Muslims, and you should try presenting your arguments/sources there first. unless there are reliable academic sources insisting these events constitute persecution, which there apparently are not, you should refrain from adding your own personal conclusions or deductions into articles. see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- furthermore, the Qurayzans were not killed because they were Jews. they were killed because it was believed they had conspired with the Meccans against the Muslims, in violation of their agreement. please familiarise yourself with the event as related by reliable sources, and stop this tendentious editing. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Killing all the men and enslaving all the rest is persecution. Arrow740 05:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest a peer review may put this interminable argument to rest. Hamster Sandwich 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Hamster, Banu Q looks like the only issue Itaqallah has. Itaq, Muhammad ordered to kill anyone who left Islam and I quoted that directly. How is that OR? Similarly for the other "kill them" order by Muhammad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- i see you are avoiding directly addressing why no sources claim the Banu Qurayza event was persecution. as for your other point, the article is about historical persecution, i.e. persecution that occured. if you want to prove any event was persecution, bring some sources asserting it, as per Wikipedia policy WP:V and WP:OR - and not your own personal arguments. ITAQALLAH 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lets continue the debate on the article talk. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- i see you are avoiding directly addressing why no sources claim the Banu Qurayza event was persecution. as for your other point, the article is about historical persecution, i.e. persecution that occured. if you want to prove any event was persecution, bring some sources asserting it, as per Wikipedia policy WP:V and WP:OR - and not your own personal arguments. ITAQALLAH 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Killing all the men and enslaving all the rest is persecution. Arrow740 05:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Submission image
Replied. → AA (talk • contribs) — 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Suicide-killers.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Suicide-killers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Islamic Golden Age
Yes. That's why I updated it. It's not too far a stretch either since it's end overlaps with the end of renaissance period and well before the Industrial revolution in Europe after which the European colonial empires take-off and the Muslim empires decay. As for the other statement about the Safavids, Moghuls, Ottomans etc. yes they are talked about in the same book and quite a few others and again the period mentioned corresponds to the peak of the power of these nations. This is just for your information, I did not put it in yet because I just didn't get around to working on that aspect yet. When or if I ever get around to adding it, I will source it until then I'd rather avoid putting it in because it would be OR and the article is not really a stub right now.--Tigeroo 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did a Amazon search as well just now to see if there was something to help you verify the information. Here it is on Amazon. Also it is available on Google Books for your verification.--Tigeroo 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did put it in last year after researching a similar question raised then. It's on the talk page for the record that discussion, and you will see what I found and put in was vastly different from what I thought the answer would be when I started looking. Which is why I spotted it had changed now and I restored it to what the book had to say. I think I've given you links to help you verify that those are indeed the dates mentioned in the book and not something I have concocted. The part of the Safavids etc. I have not added because I have not cited it and referenced and until I do that it would not be WP:V compliant. I think you are getting slightly confused between OR and Verifiability, and what one can say or discuss as a general background in talk pages vs. what one can actually put into the article. I say and believe a lot of things, but unless I can give a citation to reputable sources that say the same thing I can't put it in. P.S: There is no new discussion on the accuracy of the dates on the talk page, if you create one I would gladly copy these responses over or you can move them in as well.--Tigeroo 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest place to verify it is on the back matter of the book. Most of my summation in the intro is based on the backmatter. The specific chapter "Later years" talks about the second golden age. Then there is the timeline on page 231 as well. I will edit the page number references no problem, just headed to bed for now.--Tigeroo 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It does vary from article to article but yes I was lax in this instance.--Tigeroo 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest place to verify it is on the back matter of the book. Most of my summation in the intro is based on the backmatter. The specific chapter "Later years" talks about the second golden age. Then there is the timeline on page 231 as well. I will edit the page number references no problem, just headed to bed for now.--Tigeroo 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I did put it in last year after researching a similar question raised then. It's on the talk page for the record that discussion, and you will see what I found and put in was vastly different from what I thought the answer would be when I started looking. Which is why I spotted it had changed now and I restored it to what the book had to say. I think I've given you links to help you verify that those are indeed the dates mentioned in the book and not something I have concocted. The part of the Safavids etc. I have not added because I have not cited it and referenced and until I do that it would not be WP:V compliant. I think you are getting slightly confused between OR and Verifiability, and what one can say or discuss as a general background in talk pages vs. what one can actually put into the article. I say and believe a lot of things, but unless I can give a citation to reputable sources that say the same thing I can't put it in. P.S: There is no new discussion on the accuracy of the dates on the talk page, if you create one I would gladly copy these responses over or you can move them in as well.--Tigeroo 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did a Amazon search as well just now to see if there was something to help you verify the information. Here it is on Amazon. Also it is available on Google Books for your verification.--Tigeroo 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Help with sock
A new sock (probably of Kirbytime) is stalking me, see [3] and [4]. Arrow740 07:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks more like His Idi. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Altering my user page
I'm surprised that you did this without consulting me. The correct action, of course, would have been to leave a message on my talk page. I'm reverting your edit for now while I decide whether I need to check out this user or not. Itsmejudith 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, while we are on this subject, I would like to make note that the altering of one's user page without explicit consent, especially for the purpose of modifying user comments and such, if considered to be a form of vandalism. Further misconduct could lead to a block from editing. If it is your conviction that the user who awarded this barnstar is a sockpuppet, this is not the way to handle your claim. Take it to CheckUser info, provided you supply sufficient evidence. If you would like to talk in your own defence in regards to the WP:WQA complaint made against you, I suggest you click here. I am hoping this is the last violation of policy we see from you, and if so, please return to constructive editing. Thank you, and have a nice day.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- You started editing a month ago and you're very familiar with Wikipedia. Hello KirbyTime, how's it going? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, many people become familiar with WP policies and procedures LONG before they sign up for an account. Do you have anything other than the age of Kensington's account on which to base your accusation that he is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've filed a checkuser which should explain that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, and I responded to the Checkuser request, basically saying that I don't think you've presented enough proof for the request to be valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just in case then? Can't hurt, and it might help. Regards. Hamster Sandwich 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I've disengaged from the Checkuser discussion. I still don't think there's a strong enough correlation to show that K.Blonde is a sock, but as I said before, I don't have the full history here, and I'm apparently not qualified to weigh in on the discussion. (Note: I am not being snide here - I am truly admitting that I'm out of my league on this one.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- KT has been harassing Matt since before his ban, and has used socks to do so since. Arrow740 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I've disengaged from the Checkuser discussion. I still don't think there's a strong enough correlation to show that K.Blonde is a sock, but as I said before, I don't have the full history here, and I'm apparently not qualified to weigh in on the discussion. (Note: I am not being snide here - I am truly admitting that I'm out of my league on this one.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just in case then? Can't hurt, and it might help. Regards. Hamster Sandwich 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, and I responded to the Checkuser request, basically saying that I don't think you've presented enough proof for the request to be valid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've filed a checkuser which should explain that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Matt, many people become familiar with WP policies and procedures LONG before they sign up for an account. Do you have anything other than the age of Kensington's account on which to base your accusation that he is a sockpuppet of Kirbytime? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- You started editing a month ago and you're very familiar with Wikipedia. Hello KirbyTime, how's it going? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good afternoon, while we are on this subject, I would like to make note that the altering of one's user page without explicit consent, especially for the purpose of modifying user comments and such, if considered to be a form of vandalism. Further misconduct could lead to a block from editing. If it is your conviction that the user who awarded this barnstar is a sockpuppet, this is not the way to handle your claim. Take it to CheckUser info, provided you supply sufficient evidence. If you would like to talk in your own defence in regards to the WP:WQA complaint made against you, I suggest you click here. I am hoping this is the last violation of policy we see from you, and if so, please return to constructive editing. Thank you, and have a nice day.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
request
I have been asked to look at Talk:Historical_persecution_by_Muslims#Muhammad.27s_treatment_of_non-muslims by User:Itaqallah but I am a bit reluctant to read through it all if you can find some way of sorting it out between you. Do you also think things are stuck going in circles? --BozMo talk 10:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Things are likely to be stuck in a circle. I've had frequent problems with Itaqllah. He's an aggresive editor. I've asked these people (Itaqallah, Tigeroo) simple yes/no questions about persecution and they keep avoiding the questions. If a man says "Kill anyone who leaves religion X", this is persecution by defination. Muhammad gave at least 2 such orders recorded in hadiths for apostates and Jews. I'm not seeing any resolution soon for this issue and this is just a small part that should be in that article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Itaqallah may be aggressive, and has strong views but he listens and thinks too. Building bridges with people like that is part of what Wikipedia is for IMHO. Does making something a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? Or only if it is something which we don't regard as an offence any more? I am not trying to lead an argument anywhere just exploring the word since the "persecution by defination" isn't so clear to me. --BozMo talk 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its persecution if the killing is based on a person's religious views. Persecution is bad stuff done to a person, on the basis of religion. Its pretty simple logic if you look at the defination of persecution. There is no "analysis" needed as Itaq is suggesting, in order to come to this conclusion. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which dictionary are you using for the definition? --BozMo talk 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Its persecution if the killing is based on a person's religious views. Persecution is bad stuff done to a person, on the basis of religion. Its pretty simple logic if you look at the defination of persecution. There is no "analysis" needed as Itaq is suggesting, in order to come to this conclusion. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Itaqallah may be aggressive, and has strong views but he listens and thinks too. Building bridges with people like that is part of what Wikipedia is for IMHO. Does making something a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? Or only if it is something which we don't regard as an offence any more? I am not trying to lead an argument anywhere just exploring the word since the "persecution by defination" isn't so clear to me. --BozMo talk 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which is to refer to persecute the verb which means "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2.to annoy or trouble persistently". So does making something (religious belief for example) a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? I would guess not unless it is disproportionated efforced? Did King Darius persecute Daniel or did his courtiers? Comments like "at that time in England Roman Catholicism was illegal but practising Roman Catholics weren't persecuted" comes to mind. You could be right but I think you need to discuss it a little more before assuming anyone who disagrees is wrong by definition. --BozMo talk 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll say it like this. If I ordered people to kill anyone who left the religion XYZ, that is persecution, isnt it? There are other hadiths in which ex-muslims were actually killed. Even the order to kill by itself is harrassment at the least, becuase its a discrimination based on religion. If someone is targetted and harrassed on the basis of religion - and this is what Muhammad did by saying ex-muslims should be killed, thats persecution. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, ordering someone to be killed sounds like persecution/harrassment. Whereas declaring apostasy as a capital offence may not be so. Are traitors in England persecuted: no, high treason is a capital offence but no one has been charged for decades. What a hadith means or how to view it in this case you might want to discuss on the talk pages. Did he really stand up and say "go find and kill" or did he say "turning one's back on Allah merits death"? --BozMo talk 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You got it! It was specific clear unambigous orders to kill: "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him" and this: "if you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them". These are exact quotes. So you agree this is persecution? Now I'll expect Itaqallah to appear magically here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- why magically? i have been reviewing the whole discussion. Matt57 isn't able to give the context in which Muhammad said the quote regarding the Jews (it looks like he's inventing one) - Muhammad could easily have been referring to Jewish combatants. there is nothing in Islamic law stipulating that Jewish men be killed - at all - which would not be the case had Muhammad unequivocally said "Kill all Jewish men", which he simply did not. as for the killing of apostates, BozMo is right: it was regarded as treason. this passage from Bernard Lewis clarifies that: "The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Islam is conceived as a polity, not just as a religious community. It follows therefore that apostasy is treason. It is a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty. Any sustained and principled opposition to the existing regime or order almost inevitably involves such a withdrawal."[7]. that is why you can't just kill apostates who don't live under Islamic law. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- What distinguishes persecution from prosecution is that the latter involves the enforcement of a criminal law of -general- application. Laws like 'any adult will be punished for stealing or killing' have this general application.
- But a law of the nature 'you will be discriminated against for being a former adherent of (only) religion X' is not so and that is the situation faced by the murtads.
- Also look at the internationally accepted definition of a refugee:
"a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race ... membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country."
- High tribunals of record in many jurisdictions have dignified exmuslim apostates as a recognisable 'particular social group' that attracts this status and its protection with respect to certain notorious Muslim countries and societies. See, just for example, here and here (this was a comment by a sock, but its still relevant)
- ItaqAllah, do you have any sources for saying that apostasy is treason and thats why they were killed? "If anyone eats an apple, kill them" , this qualifies as a simple apple-killing. It doesnt say they were killed becuase they had $50 in their pockets. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Matt57, i have provided a source above which says it was considered treason. now, perhaps you can reciprocate and provide some reliable sources alleging persecution. otherwise, you may stop defending unverified POV claims. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said its persecution by defination. I'll wait for Bozmo to reply now, ok. You wont get another reply before Bozmo replies. Also, you keep avoiding the questions I asked you on the Talk page of that article (diff given above). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- who says i need to answer irrelevant questions? who says it's persecution by "defination"? i don't see any dictionary concluding persecution from Muhammad's words. your assertion is unverified, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. WP:V and WP:RS clearly say you need to provide a source relating specifically to the topic of the article. please provide it. ITAQALLAH 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not responding to you ITAQ, before you respond to my questions on the Article talk. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- the basis for the inclusion of material is determined by policy, not by non-sequitur questions. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good, keep avoiding my questions ItaqAllah. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am following the discussion still but both of you should (1) cool off a little and (2) try to understand the other's point of view a bit. Both of you are showing signs of irritation. It seems to me that the question of persecution is a little more complicated that the existance of a capital offence for religious practicise; but only just. I don't think the bit about refugees helps clarify. IMHO it turns on how the offence was declared and how it was enacted. If Matt57 can substantiate the "posse" feel of these commands then it was persecution: e.g. if Mhd exhorted people to pursue it. If Itag can substantiate the "procedural" feel then it wasn't. But I have no knowledge of the actual quotations or context. Was it given as a command as part of a long list? Was it given in response to a particular event? Matt57 says people were actually killed because of it: definitely? many? Soon after enactment? --BozMo talk 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Those were the exact quotes "If anyone leaves his religion, kill him" - it was given as an independent order like any other hadith. e.g.:
- Bukhari, volume 9, #58
- Those were the exact quotes "If anyone leaves his religion, kill him" - it was given as an independent order like any other hadith. e.g.:
- I am following the discussion still but both of you should (1) cool off a little and (2) try to understand the other's point of view a bit. Both of you are showing signs of irritation. It seems to me that the question of persecution is a little more complicated that the existance of a capital offence for religious practicise; but only just. I don't think the bit about refugees helps clarify. IMHO it turns on how the offence was declared and how it was enacted. If Matt57 can substantiate the "posse" feel of these commands then it was persecution: e.g. if Mhd exhorted people to pursue it. If Itag can substantiate the "procedural" feel then it wasn't. But I have no knowledge of the actual quotations or context. Was it given as a command as part of a long list? Was it given in response to a particular event? Matt57 says people were actually killed because of it: definitely? many? Soon after enactment? --BozMo talk 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good, keep avoiding my questions ItaqAllah. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- the basis for the inclusion of material is determined by policy, not by non-sequitur questions. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not responding to you ITAQ, before you respond to my questions on the Article talk. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- who says i need to answer irrelevant questions? who says it's persecution by "defination"? i don't see any dictionary concluding persecution from Muhammad's words. your assertion is unverified, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. WP:V and WP:RS clearly say you need to provide a source relating specifically to the topic of the article. please provide it. ITAQALLAH 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said its persecution by defination. I'll wait for Bozmo to reply now, ok. You wont get another reply before Bozmo replies. Also, you keep avoiding the questions I asked you on the Talk page of that article (diff given above). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Matt57, i have provided a source above which says it was considered treason. now, perhaps you can reciprocate and provide some reliable sources alleging persecution. otherwise, you may stop defending unverified POV claims. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- ItaqAllah, do you have any sources for saying that apostasy is treason and thats why they were killed? "If anyone eats an apple, kill them" , this qualifies as a simple apple-killing. It doesnt say they were killed becuase they had $50 in their pockets. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- You got it! It was specific clear unambigous orders to kill: "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him" and this: "if you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them". These are exact quotes. So you agree this is persecution? Now I'll expect Itaqallah to appear magically here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, ordering someone to be killed sounds like persecution/harrassment. Whereas declaring apostasy as a capital offence may not be so. Are traitors in England persecuted: no, high treason is a capital offence but no one has been charged for decades. What a hadith means or how to view it in this case you might want to discuss on the talk pages. Did he really stand up and say "go find and kill" or did he say "turning one's back on Allah merits death"? --BozMo talk 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll say it like this. If I ordered people to kill anyone who left the religion XYZ, that is persecution, isnt it? There are other hadiths in which ex-muslims were actually killed. Even the order to kill by itself is harrassment at the least, becuase its a discrimination based on religion. If someone is targetted and harrassed on the basis of religion - and this is what Muhammad did by saying ex-muslims should be killed, thats persecution. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Which is to refer to persecute the verb which means "1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. 2.to annoy or trouble persistently". So does making something (religious belief for example) a criminal offence punishable by death always amount to persecution? I would guess not unless it is disproportionated efforced? Did King Darius persecute Daniel or did his courtiers? Comments like "at that time in England Roman Catholicism was illegal but practising Roman Catholics weren't persecuted" comes to mind. You could be right but I think you need to discuss it a little more before assuming anyone who disagrees is wrong by definition. --BozMo talk 05:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....
- There are many other examples. I didnt bring in any hadith where Muhammad ordered the killing and it actually took place, but his order to kill alone is persecution, i.e., harrassment in the name of religion. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- <reset>"I didnt bring in any hadith where Muhammad ordered the killing and it actually took place" -- why is that? as stated previously, only those under the rule of the Islamic govt are killed. for example, those who went to Abyssinia or were outside Muslim lands who apostasised were not killed. as such, it is only something that can be done by an Islamic govt, as per Islamic law. that is why it is considered treason: an act of rebellion against the ruling authority, see the Lewis quote above. requesting us to prove whether it was procedural or posse-like entails more original research, as well as presentist judgements. that we're having to divulge this far to ascertain a value judgement is evidence enough we need solid reliable sources making the specific claims. ITAQALLAH 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? A person doesnt have to be killed in order to certify persecution. Just the harrassment is enough too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Muhammad ordered the execution of an apostate. did he order their harrassment? ITAQALLAH 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont use the word "execution" when you should use "murder". Muhammad ordered Muslims to murder anyone who left Islam. Thats accurate. As to your query: killing anyone because of religion, or ordering others to kill them is harrassment and thus, persecution. Actually there's persecution in the Quran too where Allah wants to burn people in Hellfire because they didnt beleive in Muhammad or Allah, but thats a separate issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- so you're saying he didn't specifically order their harassment, just their execution? ITAQALLAH 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You think I'd say that? Go back and read what I wrote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- i can't see you saying anywhere that Muhammad specifically ordered their harassment, so i'll take that as a negative. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Ordering a person to be killed because they left a religion is harrassment and persecution. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- and as such we reach full circle. hence the need for outside opinions. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Ordering a person to be killed because they left a religion is harrassment and persecution. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- i can't see you saying anywhere that Muhammad specifically ordered their harassment, so i'll take that as a negative. thanks. ITAQALLAH 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- You think I'd say that? Go back and read what I wrote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- so you're saying he didn't specifically order their harassment, just their execution? ITAQALLAH 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dont use the word "execution" when you should use "murder". Muhammad ordered Muslims to murder anyone who left Islam. Thats accurate. As to your query: killing anyone because of religion, or ordering others to kill them is harrassment and thus, persecution. Actually there's persecution in the Quran too where Allah wants to burn people in Hellfire because they didnt beleive in Muhammad or Allah, but thats a separate issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Muhammad ordered the execution of an apostate. did he order their harrassment? ITAQALLAH 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? A person doesnt have to be killed in order to certify persecution. Just the harrassment is enough too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka
Elonka's RFA hasn't officially opened yet, so you might want to remove your comments until then. I made the same mistake last night. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok, thanks, removed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(responding to talkpage comment) Matt, I'm sorry that you feel that I've ignored your responses... I've been trying to participate at Talk:Kaaba in a measured way, and it was not my intent to ignore anyone -- I do try to give time for other editors to weigh in. As regards the Depictions of Muhammad case, I understand that this went to mediation on other pages, and I applaud the efforts of those editors in that discussion. At the Kaaba article though, I've looked through all the archives, and I could find no specific discussion about that article, nor any poll at any time to double-check consensus. So, I'm actually in agreement with you, that I'd like to put the issue to rest, and it is my feeling that a simple poll to check consensus is the best way to do this. My own initial opinion is "Replace", as I still wish we could have found a compromise, but I'm fully willing to go along with the building consensus on this, which obviously appears to be a "Keep". I'd like to give a bit more time to ensure everyone has weighed in, and then if the trend continues, I'll probably change my "Replace" to "Keep", and we can also make a formal "This is what the consensus is" determination. Hope that helps explain, --Elonka 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. "Replace" means you have ackowledged the image is offensive to some users and something must be done about it and thats against Wikipedia policies (the link I gave to you). You just have to stick to doing the right thing, not the compromise and you'll be sure to always end up at the right place. If you keep compromising, things get progressively chaotic, but thanks for trying to get a consensus. I would still support a person to be an admin if they made it their mission to never compromise on policies. You're ignoring policies (censorship, not offensive, etc.) and going all along with compromise and consensus, without caring what the right thing to do is. To me thats scary if you were an admin with these attitudes. Policies are very important and thats what keeps this website in order. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, just to be clear, I do very much support the WP:CENSOR policy. And as regards that particular image, I absolutely agree that it's historical and worth including on Wikipedia. I mean, you've seen my edits on the article and talkpage at Black Stone, remember? I've fought very hard to keep the image there, and have not changed my mind on that issue. :) I also think that the image is completely appropriate at Depictions of Muhammad, as well. It's just that specifically on the Kaaba page, I don't think it's quite as appropriate as at the other articles, which is why I'm a bit more open to compromise in that one case. I think it's important to be flexible, and to work with other editors to try and find a consensus that's agreeable to as many people as possible. :) My thinking on the Kaaba article, is that just because the image is acceptable on some Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to put it on every Islam-related article on Wikipedia. :) But I also am willing to go along with the consensus on this, which, as I mentioned above, is pretty clearly "Keep". I hope that makes sense? If not, please let me know. I'm a big fan of communication! :) --Elonka 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, then why did you vote for a Replace in that Kaaba poll? Because you think its offensive to some people, right? And that it should be censored? Therefore you didnt care about the CENSOR policy. Your edits at Black Stone may be good but in this case you voted for a Replace, for what reason? That its offensive to some people, while you compromised on the quality of the article? Of course thats a big no no. Where would we get an image of Muhammad otherwise lifting the black stone like that? No where. The bottomline is that you voted for a Replace there, and the show hide option is also a way of compromise. The right way is not a compromise, its comes from sticking to the rules. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, just to be clear, I do very much support the WP:CENSOR policy. And as regards that particular image, I absolutely agree that it's historical and worth including on Wikipedia. I mean, you've seen my edits on the article and talkpage at Black Stone, remember? I've fought very hard to keep the image there, and have not changed my mind on that issue. :) I also think that the image is completely appropriate at Depictions of Muhammad, as well. It's just that specifically on the Kaaba page, I don't think it's quite as appropriate as at the other articles, which is why I'm a bit more open to compromise in that one case. I think it's important to be flexible, and to work with other editors to try and find a consensus that's agreeable to as many people as possible. :) My thinking on the Kaaba article, is that just because the image is acceptable on some Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to put it on every Islam-related article on Wikipedia. :) But I also am willing to go along with the consensus on this, which, as I mentioned above, is pretty clearly "Keep". I hope that makes sense? If not, please let me know. I'm a big fan of communication! :) --Elonka 05:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad
Material could go back in per BYT's approach, wasn't appropriate as it stood. Hope this clarifies. Itsmejudith 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please read BYT's post. Itsmejudith 15:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- On the talk page. Look for BrandonYusufToporov or BYT in the edit history. It's a very sensible and constructive suggestion IMHO. ALM is also correct, there is no consensus at the moment. The article talk page is the right place for this discussion. Itsmejudith 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is under active discussion under the last heading in the talk page. Right now. Unless I've got it all wrong, in which case there'll be plenty of people letting me know. Itsmejudith 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- All I can do is refer you to the discussion on the talk page and I suggest you join in that as I don't have any more that I can usefully add at this point. BYT's suggestion allows plenty of space for debate. Unless you feel that I have acted improperly in any way, I hope that you will now consider the discussion on this one edit closed. Itsmejudith 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I explained my edit in the summary, and now unless you want to take out a user RFC on me, please drop it. Itsmejudith 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- All I can do is refer you to the discussion on the talk page and I suggest you join in that as I don't have any more that I can usefully add at this point. BYT's suggestion allows plenty of space for debate. Unless you feel that I have acted improperly in any way, I hope that you will now consider the discussion on this one edit closed. Itsmejudith 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is under active discussion under the last heading in the talk page. Right now. Unless I've got it all wrong, in which case there'll be plenty of people letting me know. Itsmejudith 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- On the talk page. Look for BrandonYusufToporov or BYT in the edit history. It's a very sensible and constructive suggestion IMHO. ALM is also correct, there is no consensus at the moment. The article talk page is the right place for this discussion. Itsmejudith 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Accusations Against Editor Padishah5000
Matt57, you might want to go ahead and make your accussation of "Sockpuppetry" against my account Padishah5000, and the accidental use of my "un-logged-in" IP:Address 68.4.159.70 on the article Da'i. You can do that here: WP:AN/I. Also, you should review the Wikipedia policy on Wikistalking. It is serious stuff. Keep on wikiing! Padishah5000 06:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Calm down. I didnt know it was your IP address. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm passing on this one: I don't know enough about the image to know whether it's public domain, otherwise fair use, or something we'd need permission for. Vicki Rosenzweig 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: A.Z.
You need to alert A.Z. to the fact that you have removed his remarks. I would highly recommend that you revert your removals altogether; leave it to the bureaucrats to ignore valueless commentary. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you think that my commentary is valueless? A.Z. 04:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- RfA is a place for community members to discuss the merits of the candidates; its existence and its daily proceedings in which candidates are frequently rejected contradict your premise. You are basically rejecting the validity of the process, and while that is certainly a defensible position, we've already accepted the process as valid for the purpose of this RfA, so your commentary is of little use to us in that venue. A better place to take your ideas would be Wikipedia talk:Administrators or WT:RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What does this mean? And this? A.Z. 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I'm reverting all of this. The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I already reverted most of it. Another user also reverted one of the edits. A.Z. 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that you should revert your removals. Bureaucrats can make those calls on their own. It is not up to you (or any other editor) to remove good faith opinions at RFA, thanks. RxS 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (and I see they've been reverted)
- Ok its all been reverted now by the time I came back. What kind of vote was that anyway? "Everyone should be an administrator"? Thats making a joke out of the whole RfA thing. Anyway, if some admins think it should stay I guess whatever you guys wanna do. You have to admit, the closing admins sometimes dont read all the votes, so the end effect of this kind of vote could effect the voting process wrongly. Again I repeat, A.Z. made a joke out of the RfA process. What if I went around and did a "Keep" on all AfD's saying "All article should be be kept". Thats an invalid vote (or whatever you want to call it) and so it was in this case too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, make a note of it, with a link to his contribution log or a few examples. But deciding whether or not a vote is valid takes us down a slippery slope no one wants to see the bottom of. You can still add comments on voting behavior to these live RFAs.--Chaser - T 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your claim that the closing bureaucrats don't read all the discussion is a pretty serious one, what's the basis for it? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is this vote appropriate to flood all the RfA's, or does his viewpoint belong on "Village Proposals"? Are "votes" not meant to be meaningful? What if I said "Oppose, no one should be an admin" - is that acceptable too? I'm surprised to see you guys going along with him. It effects the 75% number, does it not? And does that number not effect the closing admin's judgement at all? This wasa frivolous vote and should have been removed. I repeat, its making a joke out of the RfA process. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your claim that the closing bureaucrats don't read all the discussion is a pretty serious one, what's the basis for it? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Try this and add that previously he voted support without any explanation. I don't know how much weight is given to those; probably less in close calls. The current comments you left are just naked assertions without evidence.--Chaser - T 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not strictly a vote and the closing bureaucrat has some leeway when evaluating an RFA. Now, how much leeway is hotly contested these days but they do have enough to toss out obvious joke/troll comments. Whatever you might think of the concept that everyone should be an admin I bet you'd find some support for that here and there so it's not so outrageous that it make it invalid. Jimbo may even have some sympathy for the thought. Anyway, it's best to let everyone speaking in good faith to have their say...a bureaucrat will work it out one way or another. RxS 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- If he's allowed to give frivolous support votes like this, I should be allowed to give similiar oppose votes, which I have done now to balance the numbers out. Each point on that list is supposed to be a reason of support or opposition specific to that candidate, and not "Today's saturday so everyone's getting a Support from me". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you're looking for balance, that's not the right way of doing it. Typical passage rate is 75%, so one oppose cancels three support votes. Please reconsider that protest vote.--Chaser - T 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about I give you the same reply you gave to me: The 'crats have indicated numerous times that what is and isn't an invalid vote is not for individuals in the community to decide. You can only strike votes of indefinitely blocked users, and indent votes of SPAs, likely socks, etc. Everything else just leave evidence of and let the 'crats decide how much weight to give it.. Sorry, I'm not taking it back. If you want to leave a comment at the bottom, thats up to you. This is all because of immature Wikipedia policies. Policies should reject and delete votes like this that turn the process into a joke. That includes sockpuppets by the way, of which I've seen enough appearing on AfD's to pollute the whole page and yet, policies are angelic enough to let them do that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, just to make it more clear: do you see the inconsistency? When I said this is effecting the numbers, you said "numbers dont matter". When I made the oppose vote, you came and said "numbers do matter, please reconsider". Do you see that you're not applying your own standards to me? Please reflect. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Two wrongs don't make a right.--Chaser - T 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you're doing yourself any favors here. If you think policy toward certain kinds of votes at RFA needs tuning, bring it to the talk page. Don't try and fight it out on each individual RFA...RxS 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll listen to your comments if you tell A.Z. the same, i.e. not to push some policy on RfA's (his policy is that everyone should be an admin, which clearly belongs on the Talk page, not on everyone's RfA page). I'm sorry, you'll have to be consistent. If you're tolerating A.Z's vote, you have to tolerate mine as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not caring about this issue any longer. I had to do what I had to do, i.e. balance out those frivolous votes. Maybe it will also help people think about making policies on what kind of votes should be allowed to stay on these 'vote' processes and what kind should be deleted (not struck out). In any case according to current policies I have a right to cast my vote as did A.Z.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll listen to your comments if you tell A.Z. the same, i.e. not to push some policy on RfA's (his policy is that everyone should be an admin, which clearly belongs on the Talk page, not on everyone's RfA page). I'm sorry, you'll have to be consistent. If you're tolerating A.Z's vote, you have to tolerate mine as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you're looking for balance, that's not the right way of doing it. Typical passage rate is 75%, so one oppose cancels three support votes. Please reconsider that protest vote.--Chaser - T 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- If he's allowed to give frivolous support votes like this, I should be allowed to give similiar oppose votes, which I have done now to balance the numbers out. Each point on that list is supposed to be a reason of support or opposition specific to that candidate, and not "Today's saturday so everyone's getting a Support from me". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not strictly a vote and the closing bureaucrat has some leeway when evaluating an RFA. Now, how much leeway is hotly contested these days but they do have enough to toss out obvious joke/troll comments. Whatever you might think of the concept that everyone should be an admin I bet you'd find some support for that here and there so it's not so outrageous that it make it invalid. Jimbo may even have some sympathy for the thought. Anyway, it's best to let everyone speaking in good faith to have their say...a bureaucrat will work it out one way or another. RxS 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are going to ignore these kinds of votes if it's a close case, so don't worry about it. Andre (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hey there.
I don't usually discuss votes outside the RfA, but you do realize that since it takes about 75% support to pass a RfA, a single oppose balances out three supports?
I really don't mind opposition, but I hope you mean to oppose my RfA, not just cancel out a silly support (and, if you look at it, not all opposes are that solid either; thing pretty much balance out on their own). :-) — Coren (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I didnt meant to. Admins werent allowing me to remove the other guy's invalid vote so I had to do something myself. I cancelled it out now since you requested. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. But try to have a bit of faith in the system. Things like that do cancel out: look at the editor that goes around with opposes to everyone who dares self-nominate. There are others.
- You are welcome to look at my work and feel I shouldn't get the mop yet— I actually value criticism, when it's criticism about what I did, not some random passer-by. — Coren (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree. Random passerby's should not be allowed to oppose or support. That was my point. When admins didnt delete the other guy's support vote, they were allowing a random passerby to spoil the process. Thats all I could do to nuetralize that spoil. We dont have policies for this thing. As expected there wont be any agreement ever, but I tried to raise this issue here.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
An article that may be of particular interest to you
I would suggest you read this. The bottom will be of particular interest to you. 112a873754 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Matt57, Could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? He's a good editor and I don't see why his RfA should be the victim of a dispute between you and AZ/your opposition to AZ reasoning. So out of courtesy, could you remove your opposition to Giggy's RfA? If you choose not to, then there's nothing I can do about it. So its all up to you. Nat Tang ta | co | em 08:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cant remove it, sorry. It shouldnt effect their rfa anyway, they're doing pretty good. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice you did strike your oppose to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Could you also do so for Tabercil? It probably won't affect him passing, but it will make the difference between merely passing, and passing unanimously, which, I humbly submit, might be a nice thing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)