User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2010/December

Re: Articles

Hi Rob. I looked up the page you were working on, and I just don't know if it would work out for me beacause It just seems too big, so I might end up finding info on google that was already in the article which is already pretty big. Do you think we could work on something else? Something maybe a little bit smaller? I'd really appreciate it, and I hope you don't feel bad. Thanks, --Parasect ^(Discuss) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we could possibly work on the Wikiproject mummies? Thanks, --Parasect ^(Discuss) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Hey can you undo all the IP's changes back to mines on The Bad Girls Club (season 5) article? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Did they mess up the color coding? Is that what's wrong? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and also they remove hidden messages that were placed there. AJona1992 (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind a comment from me. Shouldn't the whole color key be shown, so that people know what the color codes mean? It seems pretty pointless to me to use a whole range of colors to mean different things, and then only explain what one of the colors means. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's part of the problem... seems keys are being removed, colors are being changed and so on. I'll try to make sense of it all tonight if I have the time. Really busy this week. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I think the codes should only be a guide and be hidden because then the article is just seen "all over the place", and another thing, the IPs keep changing the colors that weren't originally there. And thanks for helping you guys. AJona1992 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see what you mean - keep the color codes there as a guide to editors, rather than shown in the article. IPs changing colors does seem confusing, yes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but if it's better to be shown then that's fine, I was only stating my opinon. That's another problem, because there's no set of rules that allow certain colors there, so anyone can change the colors when they feel like it but the colors that were there originally were ones I adopted from Big Brother 12 (U.S.), but I don't know what else to do, I'm trying to avoid the 3 revert rules as much as possible and edit conflicts. AJona1992 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ahmadiyya

this is in response to a reply of urs i read regarding ahmadiyyas, where u asked for citations for 'all Muslims' believing that Muhammad pbuh is the last prophet. well, one of the basic fundamentals of Islam is that a Muslim must believe in that fact. otherwise, a person cannot be called a Muslim. Hence, ahmadiyyas are not Muslims and no 'citations' are required. Thank you for ur time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisrune (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you are incorrect. That is not a universally agreed upon fact, and thus it must be cited. Sorry. Read up on original research to learn a little bit more about why. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no i am not incorrect, and hence the whole reason i want to rectify your error. 'universally' is such an inaccurate term at the very least. and who has to agree on it? other major religions like the Jews or Christians? i dont think so. when this is about the Muslim faith to begin with, i'm preeetty sure the 'citations' u require are in the Holy Qur'an. FYI, it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the last prophet. To be a Muslim, you have to believe in the Holy Qur'an. U aren't suggesting that you can choose which parts of the Holy Qur'an you want to believe in and ignore those which you find not so convenient, or ignore it as a whole and still be called a Muslim, are you? I didn't think so. The Holy Qur'an is the word of God. That is what all Muslims believe, regardless of 'sect'. therefore, i cant comprehend why you think that this is not a globally agreed upon fact by Muslims. still, for argument's sake, here's an Aayah that will enlighten you. http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/033.qmt.html#033.040

'Original Research'? no, thank you. i hope you will take this opportunity to learn about Islam. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisrune (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If I have to take the time to learn something about Islam, then it is not something that is UNIVERSALLY known and MUST be cited. Sorry. You are still wrong. This is not about your religion, or about anyone else's. Unless it is universally known, any such claim or counterclaim must be cited. The same holds true for other religious articles, such as the ones you mentioned - hence they are well cited. You cannot make such a claim without citation. Now, if the document you bring up proves your claim, then take it to the article's talk page (not mine) and discuss the rewording there to see if you can gain a consensus. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

no, what u seem to mean is that u don't kno about Islam and do not care to invest any time in learning about it. just because u and perhaps ur peers dont kno it doesnt mean its not 'universally' known. and i just gave u a citation. and I'M sorry but YOU're still wrong. i cudnt care less whether u think this is about our religion or others. seriously, again with the 'universally known'? and who decides this 'universally known'? unfortunately, i dont have the time to prove it to you on a talk page and gain a consensus as i feel even that would be fruitless, although i do believe the citation i gave is proof enough and that if u or sum1else researched it further (though not required), it wud prove my point. this wud be my last response on this matter, i wish to argue no further, and all questions i may hav asked are purely rhetorical. i thank you for ur time. good luck and goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisrune (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Heya :) Please help reach consensus here. Its an easy vote, so don't get discouraged.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Do you think I was right by doing this Talk:Dreaming of You (album)#Studio album revert? If not can you tell me other ways of handling the situation? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working out ok. So, it looks fine. I will admit I am somewhat baffled on how I would designate the album. Keep working it out. Your rationale seems to make really good sense - lets see what theirs ends up being. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)