User talk:Xorox

Welcome!

Hello, Xorox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Netscott 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added an empty section to List of converts to Islam. I've removed it because it served no purpose and seemed a bit disrespectful, I hope you don't mind. Netscott 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that despite my having edited in the "suspected terrorists" section you created, I am not really inclined to support it. To me the term "suspected" is something that should be avoided in an Encyclopedia. I created the "Convicts on charges of terrorism" section solely due to the fact that every individual listed in that section is there based upon cold hard facts. If you intend for the "suspected" terrorists section to remain, I strongly advise you to cite in the article which government/organization is the entity doing the "suspecting" and also add reliable source ref. citations to each individual listed. Netscott 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, I followed your suggestions and moved Anderson to the Militants section because he is convicted of espionage for Al Qaeda. I hope it is OK by now. --Xorox 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xorox, that seems better. Anderson is a tough one, because his case did involve terrorism through Al-Qaeda, but he wasn't charged with terrorism and didn't appear suspected of it. I notice that you're removing converts without editorial commentary. When you're making edits please be sure to do you best to explain your edits in the editorial commentary section. Such removal of content without explanation is frowned upon here at WikiPedia. Netscott 11:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because there were no articles about them. If we have to include every convert to islam, it will be quite boring. Of one, the reference was even missing. OK, I will keepit in mind the next time and document. Thank you for the suggestion. --Xorox 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll on Charities

Hello Xorox, since you've edited on subjects dealing with Islam I thought I'd invite you to express your opinion on a straw poll for an article title change now setup over at Talk:Charities_accused_of_ties_to_terrorism. Netscott 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at it and think about which is the best title for this article. --Xorox 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Lindsay

Not sure what to tell you on that. All I know is that he wasn't convicted, WikiPedia articles must not present information as factual when such is not the case. As an editor who's inclined to want to present subject matter from an NPOV, I really don't want that article becoming 'lopsided' with large amounts of terror related sections (imho, already it's getting a bit heavy). It seems that you're adding converts in other sections as well but my recommendation (if you're not already doing so) would be at this point, to try and add one 'positive' convert for every 'negative' convert. Netscott 11:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally added the "convicts of Terrorism" section I didn't simultaneoulsy add other 'positive' converts primarily due to the fact that at that point such a 'positive'/'negative' dichotomy wasn't already established. Now however at the same time as I would add additional citations in that section I would further add to the other sections. Netscott 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "suicide" bombers section would definitely be factual but again to add another terror related section to me starts to render the article a bit lopsided. While I understand that you are not a general expert in terms of muslim converts I think you could equally apply the techniques you're using to find the "negative" muslim converts to find "positive" ones. By adding more and more "negative" citations the article is being setup for an edit war by those editors who'd rather not see such citations. My recommendation to concurrently add positive citations is done so with the spirit to avoid such future edit warring. Netscott 11:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine how you have it now, but please be balanced in your additions and add "positive" converts as well. Netscott 11:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to assume good faith in my fellow editors but I also know how edit warring develops and due to that fact I'm concurrently inclined to make efforts to reduce chances for such wars to develop. Netscott 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Positive" convert

That's good. The heart of my recommendation is that you make efforts to be balanced in all of your Wikipedia editing. Netscott 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

You know the only source with any verifiability of having him converting to Islam appears to be the New York Post, the problem is though that it was done in their "gossip" section. I'm inclined to think that he has converted but unless there's a reliable, verifiable source I will continue to remove him from List of converts to Islam. Sorry. Netscott 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Verifiable and WP:RS to better understand why I removed the "rumored" section. Thanks! Netscott 11:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do any better than "rumored"? The article's title is List of converts to Islam not List of rumored converts to Islam. Obviously we're editors on equal footing and you can in good faith add the content back. But you will likely be setting yourself up for edit warring as I intend to ensure that such a section is not added and I will do what is necessary to those ends. Netscott 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your adoption of logic and support your move to create another list. I will not make efforts against your new list (as per the title it will most likely be based upon fact if reliable sources are cited) but I think it will most like be submitted for deletion by fellow editors in short order. Netscott 11:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of words "prophetic" heh, it shouldn't be too surprising. Most good Wikipedia editors prefer that articles are composed of cold hard facts and not speculation (which is why I didn't hesitate to remove that section). Netscott 12:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor?

Xorox, I'm not happy to say this but by your editing pattern, I'm beginning to think that you are another editor editing under the user name "Xorox". The repeatedly less than "positive" nature of your edits (in terms of Islam) is what makes me think this. I hope that I am mistaken. Netscott 14:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing from an open proxy please stop now because I don't take kindly to those that do. Netscott 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xorox, please be aware of this. Thanks. Netscott 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, your links does not seem to work. Can you explain what you mean? --Xorox 10:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, friend

Just wondering how you might have come by your username choice... maybe we have very similar tastes? :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fellow X. :) Have fun editing, and if you need help, I'm available! Best wishes, Xoloz 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]