I nominated Tyler Carter for Afd and then realized it was a pretty-much complete copy of another article and a hoax. Isn't that grounds for speedy delete? — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've now put a formal vote up on Talk:Bill Graham if you wouldn't mind going to "mark an X" - Jord 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I made the Abe Levy article is because in my article about my school, " Christian Heritage" I mention that the 8th grade school teacher, Suzanne Levy, is the mother of Abe Levy. So I made the article so people could know who he is and what he does. I'll try to get some more information about him, and I guess I'll put up an external link to an article he wrote.-- WatchHawk 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your message. additionally I didn't attack anyone, I just showed him the kind of argumentation he used himself. -- Powerpete 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The same nonsense here. If you are interested, I think either protect it, or take part in ongoing discussion . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
88.105.24.134 has vandalized the cartoons controversy page almost ten times now. Wondering if you could get a ban on that IP for that? Utopianheaven 16:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume your are talking about Mike18xx. The Infidel page looks not that bad in relative terms. I didn't spot any obvious 3RR's, but I may have missed them. I see personnal attacks in the edit summaries, but he's hardly the only offender (that's still no excuse, for anyone).
Dhimmi looks worse. There may well be some 3RR violations in there, but it's tangled; I can't say for sure by who or where. There is incivility (at least) on the talk page. I think protecting was a good call (likewise Infidel).
I'll watch both pages for a while, but that's about all I can do for now. Feel free to seek help from other more experienced admins. Maybe some kind of informal mediation would be useful. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have warned him about personnal attacks. That's not actually racist is it? Isn't it an accusation of lying? Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link should be buried in the middle of the article. It belongs at the bottom with the rest of the links. If I missed a consensus, please point it out to me.-- Jbull 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Abe Levy, I still don't know excatly what you mean by making it notable. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, we're here to write articles about events, people, groups, etc., and that's what I did. I put that he is the son of Suzanne Levy, and on my "Christian Heritage" article, I put that Mrs. Levy is his mother, so the main reason I wrote the Abe Levy article is so people could know who he is from the school article.-- WatchHawk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see, well he's a well known writer for the AP, so I guess he is.-- WatchHawk 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I pushed the view to him that we do have a consensus on keeping the image, and pointed out - quite correctly - that Wikipedia is not a Muslim theocracy. That is not a personal attack on him. EuroSong 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style for headings, it says to avoid using links within headings. Pepsidrinka 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't even realize what I was reverting. I've seen the other image bounced around so much I just assumed that was it. I have no idea what the other pic was of. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
At the time of my vote, I was not aware that the other option called for a link to the image at the top. But even still, I'm staying with my vote. I don't feel too strongly about my vote because, just like Hypocrite, I just want the never-ending discussion to end. If that means moving the article to the middle then so be it. I, personally, won't be looking at the picture either way. As of right now, I can't think of better picture for the top of the article. joturner 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's not every day I get marriage proposals. :) Thanks for taking care of it, though it was minor, really. You should see some of the stuff I get. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Jorge Stolfi:
"Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case.
would you be able to comment on that . I have got no knowledge of it . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are an administrator and you should know better than delete images without due process. You have absolutely no right to delete an image that claims fair use without due process. I must apologise for using this sock puppet, but I am an established user and I do not want my name tainted or being threatened by radical muslims. Either way I spent considerable time improving that image, Cropping it, enhancing contrast. One the improved image the text was still unreadable and it had been resized to less than one thousand pixels in height. I urge you to restore the deleted image for now and send it through due process if you want it removed. Thank you GraphicArtist 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.
The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.
Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page
Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was told before that reverting vandalism did not count for the 3RR KimvdLinde 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
-- KimvdLinde 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the copyright issue. It is a copyright violation regardless. The Danish newspaper allows a single personal copy for persons (and make explicite that it is not for companies or anything else) [3]. The e-mail says that the cartoonists needs to be approached [4], and I have not seen any evidence that that has happened . Wikipedia says it also, the question that remains is whether it is fair use (assuming it is at a US based server, as it propably does not apply to countries outside the USA):
So, as there is no copyright obtained (see above), the question is whether this constitutes fair use. The copyright disclaimer at the image page says:
I loaded the image in some image software, and I could without much loss of quality enlarge the image by 100%. And based on my experiences (although limited), the quality of the images is such that reasonable (although smaller) copies can be made, in full color and at sufficient resolution. That violates the not-republishable clause and in that sense, I would say that it is not fair use of the cartoons. But what would a judge say? Than comes the whole larger context in paly, such as the extreme controversy it invoked, etc. And in that sense, the outcome is completly unpredictable. (And the final question, will this result in court case over copyright issues, not likely because there are so many copies in high quality that go over the internet at locations you can not tough them (Belarus for example), that these cartoons will probably remain there for a VERY long time.)
BTW, other images that have the same characteristics as this image (see the list at the image page), does not imply that other images automatically can be considered "fair use".
That leaves three newspaper covers, and based on the wikipedia criteria, they might also violations of fair use.
I still think this image is a violation of copyright and fair use, but everything revolves around whether the image is good enough to make reproduce. I think it is good enough, but others diagree apparently.
-- KimvdLinde 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand --- I didn't remove any answer. It's possible that we were editing at the same time and that there was an edit conflict. In that case, you may have THOUGHT that you saved your edit, but in fact the SAVE failed. That's happened to me. Please add your answer again. Zora 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
When I reach my 10,000th edit I'll be sure to return the flavor, thank you so much for bestowing me with such a kind honor. I feel so grateful! I am so happy that someone has done such a nice thing for me!:
I want to give you the Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for your achievement and for being one of the best Wikipedians I know. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Obrigado, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Arigato, Thanks! ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Gotta give you another one, you don't have to put it on your userpage (getting kind of crowded there!) but I am a big fan of your tireless and cool work. Ashibaka tock 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted all his edits to Succession to Muhammad yesterday, and just now reverted all his edits to Abu Bakr. In each case the Shi'a view is given at length, and it is not necessary to pepper the rest of the article with caveats and provisos.
I am less disposed to be indulgent with agenda-driven Shi'a editors when they start questioning matters that are accepted by ALL academic authorities. Abu Bakr wasn't an important Muslim and one of Muhammad's trusted lieutenants? Huh? Zora 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious why you removed the convicted terrorist part from the See Also of Jamal Badawi? Was he not convicted? — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't forget to upload the image to Wikipedia from Commons, and protect the image, before putting it on the main page. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-02-6 22:29
Hi Anonym, thanks for voting and for your comments in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. – Joke 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN ( talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Hello Anonymous, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC) |
Right now there is some discussion going on regarding the People of the Book article. The "original" article can be found in the 26 January version. User:Mike18xx made some significant changes, most notably reordering one section to first present the point of view that People of the Book are treated badly and then mentioning the positive references to the People only slightly. Then User:Farhansher and User:Yuber reverted back to the January 26 version while User:Mike18xx kept reverting back to his. Then, I stepped into the mix to revert to Yuber's version, but make a few overall changes. User:Mike18xx eventually left the situation, but he was replaced by User:Pecher who continued to re-assert Mike18xx's ordering of the section in question.
Although this may seem trivial, your comments on the amount of point-of-view present in the current version (by Pecher), my version, and the Yuber's version are requested. I'm particularly referring to the Treatment of People of the Book section. joturner 04:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect the Muhammad article? The last 10 or 20 edits have all been vandalism. Aucaman Talk 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You reposted a NPOV notice on Same-sex marriage on Feb 8. As per the notice, please give your reason for doing so on that article's talk page. Wuzzy 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there,
I nominated the article for deletion because I thought that it would not be a significant event after it was no longer headline news. As I reread the article, I realize that nominating it was a mistake on my part- please accept my apologies.
However, I wasn't aware of any rule making main page articles immune to deletion...in fact WP:NOT explicitly states that Wikipedia should not have articles for news stories not worthy of standing on their own.
I don't agree that it being on the main page should be considered a reason to prevent it from being deleted, but either way, nominating it was a mistake on my part. Sorry for that, - Frazzydee| ✍ 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey thanks! And congrats to you too! — FireFox • T • 21:42, 10 February 2006
Please block this vandal. He's vandalizing various Malaysian abuse scandals. KI 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
i noticed you semi protected the featured article, thanks for the postive motion however in my experince with this vandal his/her accounts where problably created a week ago to skirt semi protection :( Benon 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to keep the sprotect on for a while, within a min of removing the tag we had 4 penis vandals picked up. My mouse can't hit the revert button fast enough :) Tawker 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted back to my version for three reasons.
The point is not that it has already happened, it's that it's happening. Remember that the chronology of Qiyamah is anybody's guess. KI 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.
All users are encounaged to display the {{ BestUserPage}} banner on their User Page.
All members all encouraged to display the {{ BUP}} banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.
We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.
Federico Pistono
✆
✍ 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anonymous editor,
My main reason for adding to the Quran article was to mention that:
"From a mathematical point of view, Rashad’s argument may be true but is incomplete. Critics usually point out that it may be possible to find such structure in any random book. Thus to strengthen the argument one must first define a rigorous mathematical definition of numerical structure and then show that based on that particular criterion, Quran’s score is much more than any random book’s score."
I think this is what many Muslims are unaware. I just wanted to let Muslims know that this is an open research problem for them. It is a really hard problem and can be a PhD thesis for a computer scientist. Is there any place I can add this point?
Please block 69.235.248.216. He's been warned multiple times, but he continues. KI 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Since " talk pages are not for general chatter ... discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article," and Saudi Arabia talk page is flooded by comments that serve no purpose (and some of what can be considered trolling), should the page be cleaned up? The way I see it, the longer these comments stay in the talk page, the more similar entries will be added.
Should " slow reverts" be used in this case? - Eagle a m n 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--
Cel
es
tianpower
háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by
FireFox using
AWB on
Celestianpower's behalf)
Beat me again to the userpage vandalism. Great job :) Tawker 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope that the work I've just started, in setting up a Pre-Islamic Arabia article and revising the Hanif article, then linking them in the Muhammad article, meets some of your concerns re making sure that readers are aware of this material. Zora 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, I have been editing the Criticism of Islam article for the last two weeks, but nobody is giving me any feedback. No revert! Nothing. People used to revert my edits in 5 minutes :), but don't know what has been happened. Could possible please have a very quick look to the article. Just a hint will be enough for me. Thanks.-- Aminz 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and kind words at RFA, Anon, and thanks for the message at my talk page. Still figuring all this out, but I've already gotten started; please let me know if you have any suggestions! Chick Bowen 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Anonymous editor, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi a.n.o.n.y.m., thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-16 11:20Z
Thank you! Hello Anonymous editor/Archive 8, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk |
Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be handy for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting! Although this is a bit late in coming, I want to thank you for voting (no matter what your vote was) in my recent
request for adminship. You might be aware that it did not pass due to a lack of consensus. The final tally was 21/9/10. I think I will try again this spring or summer after I have gained a bit more experience and met a few more fellow editors. Thanks again! |
-- Matth e wUND( talk) 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. ( ESkog)( Talk) 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell |
Hello. I was wondering about the grounds on which you blocked Irishpunktom ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reverting Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was not at all clear to me that he'd breached the three-revert rule; the five "reverts" originally reported covered two different groups of content, while the sixth revert seems a much different edit altogether. I'm also concerned, as you seem to be, about possible sock-puppetry in the report. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't interpret it that way, but that's me. Fair enough. I'm concerned however, that the reverting has continued even with the blocks. I wonder if a better solution might be protection of the article? -- Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me, thanks for taking the time. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I only return the hello since its wajib. Answer: Yes. Dont ask, you know. -- Striver 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. I dont want any help. -- Striver 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Either i was wrong, or not. In either case, i dont care any more. Im not going to point fingers. If you really are curious, invstigate. Please dont contact me again, not even to say good bye. -- Striver 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I hope he'll come back and you both can work on those articles. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As-Salaam 3alaykum "Frazzled"
اَيُّوْبْ وَزيْرْ 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Islam in Denmark article, I found three sources indicating that the Qur'an is required reading in upper-secondary schools in Denmark. Two of them were by authors who have a history of writing against Islam, while the other was a newspaper article. The newspaper article seems not to be working at the moment, but I provided a cached version on the talk page. Does the authors background invalidate it from being reliable, especially if it was published in atleast 2 journals. Perhaps you can weigh in. Furthermore, can non-English sources be used to verify something? Pepsidrinka 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't wanna start another revert war with you but that doesn't mean that I don't wanna try improving the article and remove that factual accuracy tag. By reverting my edit you added stuff to the article which is not backed by sources. C'mon you are an admin now.. What about the Wiki policy of citing sources. There is so much of crap in the article which is not backed by sources. And for once, instead of reverting my edits and adding POV tags, make some other valuable contributions to the article -- Deepak| वार्ता 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi - user:Deepak gupta has decided to leave Wikipedia. Considering his last work was to raise some objections with you, I hope you can post a message discouraging from leaving. He is apparently disillusioned with petty bickering across the place. I'm not implying anything regarding the issues you had with him, but a personal message would perhaps help. Rama's Arrow 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Geocities is not an authoritative source. Please revert the addition until an authoritative source if found. Thank you, -- Urthogie 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my deletion about Volkan Yurdakul's participation at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I had removed the info because I could find no evidence that he is taking part, neither at Torino 2006 nor at Turkish National Olympic Committee website. Please advise where did you get this information. In case my info is true, kindly revert your edit. Thanks. CeeGee 16:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You reinserted large swathes of unverified text after I moved them to the talk page without providing a source. Note that this is a controversial question and much of this material was added by IPs or semi-creditable editors. Please feel free to insert all the evidence you want on either side of this issue as long as it is sourced. Note that I did not delete the text but simply moved it to the talk page until it could be verified. If you can verify it, please readd it with citations. If not, please do not readd it. Thanks, savidan (talk) (e@) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we can try to do something with the Portal:Islam page. joturner 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You nominated several of Striver's articles for deletion. I recommend keeping the ones that are a "List of" things because they are very useful, but keep the afd for all the ones that don't say list. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:List of Muslims regarding a new organization scheme. My proposal exists at List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A (with discussion at Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A). joturner 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps talking to you after a long time. Please forgive me for interjecting on the talk page of Terrorism in Kashmir, an issue in which I am least inclined to comment further. I came there in response to a wiki-mail by a user: please see my comments on that page. I am aware that you are an experienced editor-administrator, and shall surely assist a wikipedian who wants to leave us, perhaps forever. I understand from his mail that he is studying for his bachelor’s degree in engineering and such discussion emotionally stresses him. Let us make wikipedia fun for the people instead of a source of stress. -- Bhadani 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, On what account one can confine the word medina in the prophetic traditions related to Mahdi, just to Hijaz of his era or Saudia of our times. Does any hadith stress such a situation or any of the immediate scholars of the time following the companions' age?!?
Could any of the editors of this subject shed light.
Scholars could be wrong, nor would words nor unfolding mysteries. Why bound by Saudi Arabia?
I am sorry for my accidental attack towards you on Idelguy's RfA. I was trying to make an evaluation of you rather than insult. I was fairly stressed yesterday as well (external factors not because of Wiki). Thanks for telling me that it was not acceptable. I think it us brought about because Idleguy has been a gret editior whenever I've seen him on Wikipedia and I was very confident his RfA would pass. My sincere apologies. DaGizza Chat © 19:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This user left a nast note on JTKiefer's talk page. When I warned him about it he denied any wrongdoing and told me to "lighten up." Please inform him that such comments are inappropriate, to say the least. KI 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my user page. It makes me feel a little better knowing someone actually cares. Moe ε 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The edits of 82.194.62.22 and 65.92.130.151. Thanks in advance. Best, El_C 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your well done assistance on thet Islamic view of forgiveness. Considering how important the concept is to many religions and philosophies the topic has had very little input, however, I am not suprised. I hope to help turn it into a good resource over time. I may pick your brain down the road. I am rather new to this, but am starting to catch the bug. I would welcom any suggestions. Thanks again. -- speet 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I could use a bit of help with a dilemma I have. I have been researching forgiveness for about 5 years, hence my interest in working on that article. A confusing thread seems to keep cropping up due to the ambiguous concept of condoning. I am striving to keep a NPOV on this. This may seem like a trivial matter, but if you bear with me a minute I see it as a real problem for many people struggling with forgiveness. (For example see the discussion in the forgiveness article). In my view the concepts of forgiveness and condoning are separate and distinct. Dictionaries however often cite forgive as a synonym of condone. On the other hand, condone is rarely if ever cited as a synonym of forgive. The reason I believe is apparent from the history of the word condone, which had a legal meaning of forgiveness, especially in old “fault” divorce cases. The word now for most, in my experiance, means some half-hearted affirmative approval. That leaves some people struggling with forgiveness because they bump into the mistaken belief that they cannot forgive something because that means they have to condone or approve of the action.
Every recent article I have seen flatly agrees forgiveness is not condoning. But we have dictionaries that say condoning is forgiveness, because of arcane legal definitions. However I have no cite for my conclusion as to how this occurred. I don’t really want to muddle up the forgiveness page on this, so I thought the approach may be to do a page for the word condone. However, it has been flagged for the dictionary, and I must admit it does seem like such a definition unless I fully spell out the competing theories. Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page? But as I am relatively new to this I don’t have the proper “feel” for how to handle this. I think my theory is correct, and certainly as well founded as some of the information I have seen on Wikapedia
On another note, I see a unique potential opportunity for this page as bringing input from all walks of life together on a uniting value. Any thoughts on a more effective way of soliciting input from the various religious pages? Again thanks for your addition. -- speet 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for any help you can give on condone. On the religious pages, it is amazing that what is a central concept is essentially ignored by all. So much for content, I guess it is more fun to argue about form. -- speet 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
When you get a moment, see if this works for you: condone. Thanks for all your help. -- speet 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anon.. Yes, I decided not to leave Wikipedia. However, I will remain inactive till May or so. All I hope is that everything between us is cool. Regarding the sockpuppet issue, I think I would have responded in a similar manner the way you did. There were many factors backing yr claim too: the user started making edits soon after I decided to leave and reverted Terrorism in Kashmir to my version. But at the same time, I would have taken up the issue to WP:RCU before making accusations. I think you shouldn't have accused me of creating a sockpuppet account without any concrete evidences. But I understand the way you responded because in the past many Wikipedians have used sockpuppet accounts to defame you. Anyways.. I wouldn't be bothering you anymore. When I return I will concentrate mostly on Science, Space Exploration and Engineering- related articles as there is much less arguing there (now please don't come running behind me there too :P). I wish you good luck in life --Deepak 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Hi Anonymous editor/Archive 8, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Anonymous Editor,
I need another suggestion yet. On 10th December 2005 you had needfully created the page People claiming to be the Mahdi moving the contents from the page Mahdi as it was then.
Probably, you were the one to add an introductory text at the place where the original section used to be, necessary as a summary for any curious visitor.
Another piece of text as a leadline is also found on the People claiming to be the Mahdi new page.
Acknowledge how would it be if the word 'mainstream' in that piece of text is replced by 'majority of'??
Once a mainstream nation of homosapiens deemed Abraham false, the next mainstream rendered Moses a rebel. Then comes other mainstreams crucifying yet another icon of a phrophet. While the current mainstream trend never finds prophethood in Islam's prophet.
Wont 'majority' fit? Mainstream hurts, wont some feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgs ( talk • contribs)
I've just posted a message on Bhadani's talk page. I've explained him your stance as to why you think he was canvassing for votes. I personally don't believe he was canvassing for votes, (reasons being manifold), but I believe that it was a case of bad timing. However, I may like to add that the tone of your replies has much to be desired of and people often misunderstand you. I've noticed this from many of your posts including your own RFAs. I suggest that before you post something, please read it aloud. This would help avoid a perceived accusatory or agressive tone and clear potential misunderstandings. A few smileys would go a long way in setting the tone of the topic. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm receiving personal attacks from Classic 971, is there anything I can do other than deleting his/her comments? - Eagle a m n 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets galore at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew-fro but no way to prove it... please help. KI 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anonymous, my name is Jared and I'm having a little problem. Another user and I recently put up three users for a possible sockpuppetry claim ( see here) because of overwhelming evidence that states so (and its taking a long time to get this over with; only one user has posted a comment). My problem is that User:Wintermetal keeps taking the sockpuppery template off of his home and discussion pages, stating in his edit summary that I should "ruin my own home page". He has done this every time I revert it back, and I warn him of a potential block every time, but he doesn't care (and I'm not an admin). Could you please help me....maybe block him or something...let him know he is not supposed to take the notice off of his page (which incidentally makes him more suspicious of sockpuppetry!) Thanks a lot! (P.S. I contacted another user about this, too, but she hasn't responded as of yet, and it is sort of important.) -- Jared [T]/ [+] 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you just give any IP's that do it a week block, thats what the policy was in the past, see the talk page for some more sources of this guys vandalism. Thanks! -- Tawker 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
Salam - would you have time to take a look at the introduction of this article? I feel it is quiet uninformed as it stands now. There seem to be editors who are applying their own personal opinion of what it means, from what I can tell. In Arabic, kafir is simply one who willfully acts in a manner 'unappreciative of' or 'rejecting of' God and the teaching of his prophets, but even Arabic and Islamic sources describe controversy associated with defining this word. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations for getting the Battle of Badr article featured! -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. :) It's very good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure I have ever been really impersonated like that before. Thanks again. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in
my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with my new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me.
Flower
party? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi a.n.o.n.y.m, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, why don't you have a period after the m in you signature? × Meegs 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
I've been looking at other people's pages and I've been finding all about me object thing on their user page like Evrik. I want add stuff about me like I'm a democrat and I'm a member of the worldwide community of scouts. Can you teach me how to make pages like those? Oh yes, also, can you respond to me on my talk page, please? Thanks. Crad0010 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw you edited Mohammed Nour Abdelkerim. You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad. KI 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anonymous editor/Archive 8, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC )
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. |
Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! — akghetto talk 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
hey, To move islamic World to Muslim world, I need an Admin. Can you do it ?-- Irishpunktom\ talk 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reported about the charge made by you on WP:CHU. I trust that the matter shall be suitably dealt with to your utmost satisfaction. -- Bhadani 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Should the guild go? I am the only one finding it usefull? I am a burden to wikipedia?
give your opinion, only a vote wont do:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild
-- Striver 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I could consider it if it was suggested in the maner you did, in a polite and civilized way, but i get hostile when i see the accusations they throw at me there.
To the topic: Dont you think the guilds servers the purpose of giving a overview of Shi'a specific articles? I fear that effect would be lost if it where merged to the Muslim guild. On the other hand, it would be refreshing to get rid of "Shi'a are not Muslims".... Maybe if we categorized it in a maner where Shi'a and Sunni specific articles where on different categories?
Basicly, i dont feel to warm about the idea right now, but im open to talking about it. However, right now in this second, i wont vote for that, i feel that would be giving in to the stalking and bad faith nominations, these guys are stalking me all the way to the Islamic topics, brandning Sahih Bukhari as a "questinable source" as a afd nomination arguement. They have no idea about anything related to Islam. I feel very defensive about anything they are haunting me in. I mean, look at this Betty Kelen and Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), the guy didnt even bother to chek if the books and writer was notable, he just followed my user contribution and afd'd it for the sole reason that i created it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science. That gets me pretty uppset. -- Striver 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I nominated Tyler Carter for Afd and then realized it was a pretty-much complete copy of another article and a hoax. Isn't that grounds for speedy delete? — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've now put a formal vote up on Talk:Bill Graham if you wouldn't mind going to "mark an X" - Jord 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I made the Abe Levy article is because in my article about my school, " Christian Heritage" I mention that the 8th grade school teacher, Suzanne Levy, is the mother of Abe Levy. So I made the article so people could know who he is and what he does. I'll try to get some more information about him, and I guess I'll put up an external link to an article he wrote.-- WatchHawk 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your message. additionally I didn't attack anyone, I just showed him the kind of argumentation he used himself. -- Powerpete 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The same nonsense here. If you are interested, I think either protect it, or take part in ongoing discussion . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
88.105.24.134 has vandalized the cartoons controversy page almost ten times now. Wondering if you could get a ban on that IP for that? Utopianheaven 16:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume your are talking about Mike18xx. The Infidel page looks not that bad in relative terms. I didn't spot any obvious 3RR's, but I may have missed them. I see personnal attacks in the edit summaries, but he's hardly the only offender (that's still no excuse, for anyone).
Dhimmi looks worse. There may well be some 3RR violations in there, but it's tangled; I can't say for sure by who or where. There is incivility (at least) on the talk page. I think protecting was a good call (likewise Infidel).
I'll watch both pages for a while, but that's about all I can do for now. Feel free to seek help from other more experienced admins. Maybe some kind of informal mediation would be useful. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have warned him about personnal attacks. That's not actually racist is it? Isn't it an accusation of lying? Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link should be buried in the middle of the article. It belongs at the bottom with the rest of the links. If I missed a consensus, please point it out to me.-- Jbull 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Abe Levy, I still don't know excatly what you mean by making it notable. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, we're here to write articles about events, people, groups, etc., and that's what I did. I put that he is the son of Suzanne Levy, and on my "Christian Heritage" article, I put that Mrs. Levy is his mother, so the main reason I wrote the Abe Levy article is so people could know who he is from the school article.-- WatchHawk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see, well he's a well known writer for the AP, so I guess he is.-- WatchHawk 16:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I pushed the view to him that we do have a consensus on keeping the image, and pointed out - quite correctly - that Wikipedia is not a Muslim theocracy. That is not a personal attack on him. EuroSong 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style for headings, it says to avoid using links within headings. Pepsidrinka 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't even realize what I was reverting. I've seen the other image bounced around so much I just assumed that was it. I have no idea what the other pic was of. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
At the time of my vote, I was not aware that the other option called for a link to the image at the top. But even still, I'm staying with my vote. I don't feel too strongly about my vote because, just like Hypocrite, I just want the never-ending discussion to end. If that means moving the article to the middle then so be it. I, personally, won't be looking at the picture either way. As of right now, I can't think of better picture for the top of the article. joturner 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's not every day I get marriage proposals. :) Thanks for taking care of it, though it was minor, really. You should see some of the stuff I get. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Jorge Stolfi:
"Infidel" is only used when translating Muslims text and speeches, presumably always for the word "kafir", and it is understood by English readers to mean basically "non-Muslim". The word "infidel" is not used by Christians to refer to anyone, precisely because in English it means "non-Muslim", not "non-Christian". Christians use "pagan", "heathen", "non-Christian', "non-believer", "apostate", depending on the case.
would you be able to comment on that . I have got no knowledge of it . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are an administrator and you should know better than delete images without due process. You have absolutely no right to delete an image that claims fair use without due process. I must apologise for using this sock puppet, but I am an established user and I do not want my name tainted or being threatened by radical muslims. Either way I spent considerable time improving that image, Cropping it, enhancing contrast. One the improved image the text was still unreadable and it had been resized to less than one thousand pixels in height. I urge you to restore the deleted image for now and send it through due process if you want it removed. Thank you GraphicArtist 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
List of Newspaper cover images 1000+ pixels:
Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.
The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.
Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page
Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was told before that reverting vandalism did not count for the 3RR KimvdLinde 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
-- KimvdLinde 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the copyright issue. It is a copyright violation regardless. The Danish newspaper allows a single personal copy for persons (and make explicite that it is not for companies or anything else) [3]. The e-mail says that the cartoonists needs to be approached [4], and I have not seen any evidence that that has happened . Wikipedia says it also, the question that remains is whether it is fair use (assuming it is at a US based server, as it propably does not apply to countries outside the USA):
So, as there is no copyright obtained (see above), the question is whether this constitutes fair use. The copyright disclaimer at the image page says:
I loaded the image in some image software, and I could without much loss of quality enlarge the image by 100%. And based on my experiences (although limited), the quality of the images is such that reasonable (although smaller) copies can be made, in full color and at sufficient resolution. That violates the not-republishable clause and in that sense, I would say that it is not fair use of the cartoons. But what would a judge say? Than comes the whole larger context in paly, such as the extreme controversy it invoked, etc. And in that sense, the outcome is completly unpredictable. (And the final question, will this result in court case over copyright issues, not likely because there are so many copies in high quality that go over the internet at locations you can not tough them (Belarus for example), that these cartoons will probably remain there for a VERY long time.)
BTW, other images that have the same characteristics as this image (see the list at the image page), does not imply that other images automatically can be considered "fair use".
That leaves three newspaper covers, and based on the wikipedia criteria, they might also violations of fair use.
I still think this image is a violation of copyright and fair use, but everything revolves around whether the image is good enough to make reproduce. I think it is good enough, but others diagree apparently.
-- KimvdLinde 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand --- I didn't remove any answer. It's possible that we were editing at the same time and that there was an edit conflict. In that case, you may have THOUGHT that you saved your edit, but in fact the SAVE failed. That's happened to me. Please add your answer again. Zora 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
When I reach my 10,000th edit I'll be sure to return the flavor, thank you so much for bestowing me with such a kind honor. I feel so grateful! I am so happy that someone has done such a nice thing for me!:
I want to give you the Tireless Contributor's Barnstar for your achievement and for being one of the best Wikipedians I know. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Obrigado, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Arigato, Thanks! ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Gotta give you another one, you don't have to put it on your userpage (getting kind of crowded there!) but I am a big fan of your tireless and cool work. Ashibaka tock 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted all his edits to Succession to Muhammad yesterday, and just now reverted all his edits to Abu Bakr. In each case the Shi'a view is given at length, and it is not necessary to pepper the rest of the article with caveats and provisos.
I am less disposed to be indulgent with agenda-driven Shi'a editors when they start questioning matters that are accepted by ALL academic authorities. Abu Bakr wasn't an important Muslim and one of Muhammad's trusted lieutenants? Huh? Zora 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious why you removed the convicted terrorist part from the See Also of Jamal Badawi? Was he not convicted? — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't forget to upload the image to Wikipedia from Commons, and protect the image, before putting it on the main page. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-02-6 22:29
Hi Anonym, thanks for voting and for your comments in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. – Joke 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN ( talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Hello Anonymous, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC) |
Right now there is some discussion going on regarding the People of the Book article. The "original" article can be found in the 26 January version. User:Mike18xx made some significant changes, most notably reordering one section to first present the point of view that People of the Book are treated badly and then mentioning the positive references to the People only slightly. Then User:Farhansher and User:Yuber reverted back to the January 26 version while User:Mike18xx kept reverting back to his. Then, I stepped into the mix to revert to Yuber's version, but make a few overall changes. User:Mike18xx eventually left the situation, but he was replaced by User:Pecher who continued to re-assert Mike18xx's ordering of the section in question.
Although this may seem trivial, your comments on the amount of point-of-view present in the current version (by Pecher), my version, and the Yuber's version are requested. I'm particularly referring to the Treatment of People of the Book section. joturner 04:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect the Muhammad article? The last 10 or 20 edits have all been vandalism. Aucaman Talk 14:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You reposted a NPOV notice on Same-sex marriage on Feb 8. As per the notice, please give your reason for doing so on that article's talk page. Wuzzy 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there,
I nominated the article for deletion because I thought that it would not be a significant event after it was no longer headline news. As I reread the article, I realize that nominating it was a mistake on my part- please accept my apologies.
However, I wasn't aware of any rule making main page articles immune to deletion...in fact WP:NOT explicitly states that Wikipedia should not have articles for news stories not worthy of standing on their own.
I don't agree that it being on the main page should be considered a reason to prevent it from being deleted, but either way, nominating it was a mistake on my part. Sorry for that, - Frazzydee| ✍ 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey thanks! And congrats to you too! — FireFox • T • 21:42, 10 February 2006
Please block this vandal. He's vandalizing various Malaysian abuse scandals. KI 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
i noticed you semi protected the featured article, thanks for the postive motion however in my experince with this vandal his/her accounts where problably created a week ago to skirt semi protection :( Benon 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to keep the sprotect on for a while, within a min of removing the tag we had 4 penis vandals picked up. My mouse can't hit the revert button fast enough :) Tawker 23:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I reverted back to my version for three reasons.
The point is not that it has already happened, it's that it's happening. Remember that the chronology of Qiyamah is anybody's guess. KI 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.
All users are encounaged to display the {{ BestUserPage}} banner on their User Page.
All members all encouraged to display the {{ BUP}} banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.
We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.
Federico Pistono
✆
✍ 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anonymous editor,
My main reason for adding to the Quran article was to mention that:
"From a mathematical point of view, Rashad’s argument may be true but is incomplete. Critics usually point out that it may be possible to find such structure in any random book. Thus to strengthen the argument one must first define a rigorous mathematical definition of numerical structure and then show that based on that particular criterion, Quran’s score is much more than any random book’s score."
I think this is what many Muslims are unaware. I just wanted to let Muslims know that this is an open research problem for them. It is a really hard problem and can be a PhD thesis for a computer scientist. Is there any place I can add this point?
Please block 69.235.248.216. He's been warned multiple times, but he continues. KI 23:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Since " talk pages are not for general chatter ... discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article," and Saudi Arabia talk page is flooded by comments that serve no purpose (and some of what can be considered trolling), should the page be cleaned up? The way I see it, the longer these comments stay in the talk page, the more similar entries will be added.
Should " slow reverts" be used in this case? - Eagle a m n 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--
Cel
es
tianpower
háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by
FireFox using
AWB on
Celestianpower's behalf)
Beat me again to the userpage vandalism. Great job :) Tawker 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope that the work I've just started, in setting up a Pre-Islamic Arabia article and revising the Hanif article, then linking them in the Muhammad article, meets some of your concerns re making sure that readers are aware of this material. Zora 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor, I have been editing the Criticism of Islam article for the last two weeks, but nobody is giving me any feedback. No revert! Nothing. People used to revert my edits in 5 minutes :), but don't know what has been happened. Could possible please have a very quick look to the article. Just a hint will be enough for me. Thanks.-- Aminz 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and kind words at RFA, Anon, and thanks for the message at my talk page. Still figuring all this out, but I've already gotten started; please let me know if you have any suggestions! Chick Bowen 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Anonymous editor, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi a.n.o.n.y.m., thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-02-16 11:20Z
Thank you! Hello Anonymous editor/Archive 8, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk |
Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be handy for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting! Although this is a bit late in coming, I want to thank you for voting (no matter what your vote was) in my recent
request for adminship. You might be aware that it did not pass due to a lack of consensus. The final tally was 21/9/10. I think I will try again this spring or summer after I have gained a bit more experience and met a few more fellow editors. Thanks again! |
-- Matth e wUND( talk) 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. ( ESkog)( Talk) 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell |
Hello. I was wondering about the grounds on which you blocked Irishpunktom ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reverting Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was not at all clear to me that he'd breached the three-revert rule; the five "reverts" originally reported covered two different groups of content, while the sixth revert seems a much different edit altogether. I'm also concerned, as you seem to be, about possible sock-puppetry in the report. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't interpret it that way, but that's me. Fair enough. I'm concerned however, that the reverting has continued even with the blocks. I wonder if a better solution might be protection of the article? -- Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Good enough for me, thanks for taking the time. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I only return the hello since its wajib. Answer: Yes. Dont ask, you know. -- Striver 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. I dont want any help. -- Striver 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Either i was wrong, or not. In either case, i dont care any more. Im not going to point fingers. If you really are curious, invstigate. Please dont contact me again, not even to say good bye. -- Striver 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I hope he'll come back and you both can work on those articles. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As-Salaam 3alaykum "Frazzled"
اَيُّوْبْ وَزيْرْ 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Islam in Denmark article, I found three sources indicating that the Qur'an is required reading in upper-secondary schools in Denmark. Two of them were by authors who have a history of writing against Islam, while the other was a newspaper article. The newspaper article seems not to be working at the moment, but I provided a cached version on the talk page. Does the authors background invalidate it from being reliable, especially if it was published in atleast 2 journals. Perhaps you can weigh in. Furthermore, can non-English sources be used to verify something? Pepsidrinka 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't wanna start another revert war with you but that doesn't mean that I don't wanna try improving the article and remove that factual accuracy tag. By reverting my edit you added stuff to the article which is not backed by sources. C'mon you are an admin now.. What about the Wiki policy of citing sources. There is so much of crap in the article which is not backed by sources. And for once, instead of reverting my edits and adding POV tags, make some other valuable contributions to the article -- Deepak| वार्ता 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi - user:Deepak gupta has decided to leave Wikipedia. Considering his last work was to raise some objections with you, I hope you can post a message discouraging from leaving. He is apparently disillusioned with petty bickering across the place. I'm not implying anything regarding the issues you had with him, but a personal message would perhaps help. Rama's Arrow 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Geocities is not an authoritative source. Please revert the addition until an authoritative source if found. Thank you, -- Urthogie 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my deletion about Volkan Yurdakul's participation at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I had removed the info because I could find no evidence that he is taking part, neither at Torino 2006 nor at Turkish National Olympic Committee website. Please advise where did you get this information. In case my info is true, kindly revert your edit. Thanks. CeeGee 16:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You reinserted large swathes of unverified text after I moved them to the talk page without providing a source. Note that this is a controversial question and much of this material was added by IPs or semi-creditable editors. Please feel free to insert all the evidence you want on either side of this issue as long as it is sourced. Note that I did not delete the text but simply moved it to the talk page until it could be verified. If you can verify it, please readd it with citations. If not, please do not readd it. Thanks, savidan (talk) (e@) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we can try to do something with the Portal:Islam page. joturner 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You nominated several of Striver's articles for deletion. I recommend keeping the ones that are a "List of" things because they are very useful, but keep the afd for all the ones that don't say list. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:List of Muslims regarding a new organization scheme. My proposal exists at List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A (with discussion at Talk:List of Muslims/Proposed Organization A). joturner 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps talking to you after a long time. Please forgive me for interjecting on the talk page of Terrorism in Kashmir, an issue in which I am least inclined to comment further. I came there in response to a wiki-mail by a user: please see my comments on that page. I am aware that you are an experienced editor-administrator, and shall surely assist a wikipedian who wants to leave us, perhaps forever. I understand from his mail that he is studying for his bachelor’s degree in engineering and such discussion emotionally stresses him. Let us make wikipedia fun for the people instead of a source of stress. -- Bhadani 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, On what account one can confine the word medina in the prophetic traditions related to Mahdi, just to Hijaz of his era or Saudia of our times. Does any hadith stress such a situation or any of the immediate scholars of the time following the companions' age?!?
Could any of the editors of this subject shed light.
Scholars could be wrong, nor would words nor unfolding mysteries. Why bound by Saudi Arabia?
I am sorry for my accidental attack towards you on Idelguy's RfA. I was trying to make an evaluation of you rather than insult. I was fairly stressed yesterday as well (external factors not because of Wiki). Thanks for telling me that it was not acceptable. I think it us brought about because Idleguy has been a gret editior whenever I've seen him on Wikipedia and I was very confident his RfA would pass. My sincere apologies. DaGizza Chat © 19:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This user left a nast note on JTKiefer's talk page. When I warned him about it he denied any wrongdoing and told me to "lighten up." Please inform him that such comments are inappropriate, to say the least. KI 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my user page. It makes me feel a little better knowing someone actually cares. Moe ε 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The edits of 82.194.62.22 and 65.92.130.151. Thanks in advance. Best, El_C 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your well done assistance on thet Islamic view of forgiveness. Considering how important the concept is to many religions and philosophies the topic has had very little input, however, I am not suprised. I hope to help turn it into a good resource over time. I may pick your brain down the road. I am rather new to this, but am starting to catch the bug. I would welcom any suggestions. Thanks again. -- speet 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I could use a bit of help with a dilemma I have. I have been researching forgiveness for about 5 years, hence my interest in working on that article. A confusing thread seems to keep cropping up due to the ambiguous concept of condoning. I am striving to keep a NPOV on this. This may seem like a trivial matter, but if you bear with me a minute I see it as a real problem for many people struggling with forgiveness. (For example see the discussion in the forgiveness article). In my view the concepts of forgiveness and condoning are separate and distinct. Dictionaries however often cite forgive as a synonym of condone. On the other hand, condone is rarely if ever cited as a synonym of forgive. The reason I believe is apparent from the history of the word condone, which had a legal meaning of forgiveness, especially in old “fault” divorce cases. The word now for most, in my experiance, means some half-hearted affirmative approval. That leaves some people struggling with forgiveness because they bump into the mistaken belief that they cannot forgive something because that means they have to condone or approve of the action.
Every recent article I have seen flatly agrees forgiveness is not condoning. But we have dictionaries that say condoning is forgiveness, because of arcane legal definitions. However I have no cite for my conclusion as to how this occurred. I don’t really want to muddle up the forgiveness page on this, so I thought the approach may be to do a page for the word condone. However, it has been flagged for the dictionary, and I must admit it does seem like such a definition unless I fully spell out the competing theories. Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page? But as I am relatively new to this I don’t have the proper “feel” for how to handle this. I think my theory is correct, and certainly as well founded as some of the information I have seen on Wikapedia
On another note, I see a unique potential opportunity for this page as bringing input from all walks of life together on a uniting value. Any thoughts on a more effective way of soliciting input from the various religious pages? Again thanks for your addition. -- speet 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for any help you can give on condone. On the religious pages, it is amazing that what is a central concept is essentially ignored by all. So much for content, I guess it is more fun to argue about form. -- speet 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
When you get a moment, see if this works for you: condone. Thanks for all your help. -- speet 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anon.. Yes, I decided not to leave Wikipedia. However, I will remain inactive till May or so. All I hope is that everything between us is cool. Regarding the sockpuppet issue, I think I would have responded in a similar manner the way you did. There were many factors backing yr claim too: the user started making edits soon after I decided to leave and reverted Terrorism in Kashmir to my version. But at the same time, I would have taken up the issue to WP:RCU before making accusations. I think you shouldn't have accused me of creating a sockpuppet account without any concrete evidences. But I understand the way you responded because in the past many Wikipedians have used sockpuppet accounts to defame you. Anyways.. I wouldn't be bothering you anymore. When I return I will concentrate mostly on Science, Space Exploration and Engineering- related articles as there is much less arguing there (now please don't come running behind me there too :P). I wish you good luck in life --Deepak 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Hi Anonymous editor/Archive 8, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
Hi Anonymous Editor,
I need another suggestion yet. On 10th December 2005 you had needfully created the page People claiming to be the Mahdi moving the contents from the page Mahdi as it was then.
Probably, you were the one to add an introductory text at the place where the original section used to be, necessary as a summary for any curious visitor.
Another piece of text as a leadline is also found on the People claiming to be the Mahdi new page.
Acknowledge how would it be if the word 'mainstream' in that piece of text is replced by 'majority of'??
Once a mainstream nation of homosapiens deemed Abraham false, the next mainstream rendered Moses a rebel. Then comes other mainstreams crucifying yet another icon of a phrophet. While the current mainstream trend never finds prophethood in Islam's prophet.
Wont 'majority' fit? Mainstream hurts, wont some feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgs ( talk • contribs)
I've just posted a message on Bhadani's talk page. I've explained him your stance as to why you think he was canvassing for votes. I personally don't believe he was canvassing for votes, (reasons being manifold), but I believe that it was a case of bad timing. However, I may like to add that the tone of your replies has much to be desired of and people often misunderstand you. I've noticed this from many of your posts including your own RFAs. I suggest that before you post something, please read it aloud. This would help avoid a perceived accusatory or agressive tone and clear potential misunderstandings. A few smileys would go a long way in setting the tone of the topic. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm receiving personal attacks from Classic 971, is there anything I can do other than deleting his/her comments? - Eagle a m n 20:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets galore at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew-fro but no way to prove it... please help. KI 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anonymous, my name is Jared and I'm having a little problem. Another user and I recently put up three users for a possible sockpuppetry claim ( see here) because of overwhelming evidence that states so (and its taking a long time to get this over with; only one user has posted a comment). My problem is that User:Wintermetal keeps taking the sockpuppery template off of his home and discussion pages, stating in his edit summary that I should "ruin my own home page". He has done this every time I revert it back, and I warn him of a potential block every time, but he doesn't care (and I'm not an admin). Could you please help me....maybe block him or something...let him know he is not supposed to take the notice off of his page (which incidentally makes him more suspicious of sockpuppetry!) Thanks a lot! (P.S. I contacted another user about this, too, but she hasn't responded as of yet, and it is sort of important.) -- Jared [T]/ [+] 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you just give any IP's that do it a week block, thats what the policy was in the past, see the talk page for some more sources of this guys vandalism. Thanks! -- Tawker 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
Salam - would you have time to take a look at the introduction of this article? I feel it is quiet uninformed as it stands now. There seem to be editors who are applying their own personal opinion of what it means, from what I can tell. In Arabic, kafir is simply one who willfully acts in a manner 'unappreciative of' or 'rejecting of' God and the teaching of his prophets, but even Arabic and Islamic sources describe controversy associated with defining this word. Thanks Ramallite (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations for getting the Battle of Badr article featured! -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. :) It's very good work. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure I have ever been really impersonated like that before. Thanks again. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in
my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with my new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me.
Flower
party? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi a.n.o.n.y.m, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, why don't you have a period after the m in you signature? × Meegs 07:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
I've been looking at other people's pages and I've been finding all about me object thing on their user page like Evrik. I want add stuff about me like I'm a democrat and I'm a member of the worldwide community of scouts. Can you teach me how to make pages like those? Oh yes, also, can you respond to me on my talk page, please? Thanks. Crad0010 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw you edited Mohammed Nour Abdelkerim. You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Chad. KI 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Anonymous editor/Archive 8, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC )
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. |
Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! — akghetto talk 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
hey, To move islamic World to Muslim world, I need an Admin. Can you do it ?-- Irishpunktom\ talk 11:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reported about the charge made by you on WP:CHU. I trust that the matter shall be suitably dealt with to your utmost satisfaction. -- Bhadani 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Should the guild go? I am the only one finding it usefull? I am a burden to wikipedia?
give your opinion, only a vote wont do:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild
-- Striver 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I could consider it if it was suggested in the maner you did, in a polite and civilized way, but i get hostile when i see the accusations they throw at me there.
To the topic: Dont you think the guilds servers the purpose of giving a overview of Shi'a specific articles? I fear that effect would be lost if it where merged to the Muslim guild. On the other hand, it would be refreshing to get rid of "Shi'a are not Muslims".... Maybe if we categorized it in a maner where Shi'a and Sunni specific articles where on different categories?
Basicly, i dont feel to warm about the idea right now, but im open to talking about it. However, right now in this second, i wont vote for that, i feel that would be giving in to the stalking and bad faith nominations, these guys are stalking me all the way to the Islamic topics, brandning Sahih Bukhari as a "questinable source" as a afd nomination arguement. They have no idea about anything related to Islam. I feel very defensive about anything they are haunting me in. I mean, look at this Betty Kelen and Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), the guy didnt even bother to chek if the books and writer was notable, he just followed my user contribution and afd'd it for the sole reason that i created it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science. That gets me pretty uppset. -- Striver 17:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)