Re your inquiry, [1] I'd be happy to share my personal perspectives on the subjects you've written about, but prefer to do so by e-mail. Not that I have anything particularly controversial to say, but as I prefer that others keep their views separate from their editing, I feel obliged to do so myself. Proabivouac 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have weighed in on issues with The Holocaust's article before, can you weigh in on the use of the word 'slaughter,' as seen here? — Parhamr 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you have listed this for FAC twice. I would like to get this to FA too. I am putting all the refs in proper format now, removing dead links and mark them as citation needed. Then I'll find any needed refs that I can. Then I plan to rework the article, including getting most if not all refs out of the lead. A good lead needs few if any refs. Then I'll do final FAC checks. I've gotten nine articles to FA status. Let me know if you'd like to help. Respond here please, I have a watch on your page now. Rlevse 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. BYT 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed or deleted all "Citation needed" tags. Steel showdown with Supreme Court is next on my list. Thanks again for the help. BYT 10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's where we are at and the next steps, basically, the article is too long: 1) the lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article, it needs trimmed and made a summary 2) the TOC is long, see if it can be shortened 3) copyedit, avoid all those parens, make prose smoother 4) wikilink full dates, like August 04, 2007 5) every section and all but the smallest paragraphs need refs. Best to use the ones we already have if they apply
We need to cut about 10-15k out of it, if we have to we can make subarticles, but see what you can do on the above steps first. Use Gerald R. Ford as a guide, it's an FA.
Also, look at the first two FAC failures and see if anything still applies. Did you notice I objected on the first two runs-;) Rlevse 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC? Rlevse 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask a few more people to look it over. Hoary would like a bit more time. I'm currently planning to nom it on Sat, 11 Aug. Rlevse 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think this is a partisan religious source, then you're terribly mistaken. Arrow740 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This [2] is an unfortunate edit summary. In general it works better to just describe your edit, and use the talk page for dialog. And even at that, it's just an editing disagreement, not a conspiracy against you. It's also odd to complain of being reverted while yourself reverting over unrelated edits that only corrected mistakes in the interwiki linking. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad (From BYT to User:Proabivouac:)
I really had expected more of you.
The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.
Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.
On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
I hope you are fine and everything is going well with you. Thanks for helping with the dispute on Muhammad article. There are some undiscussed fundamental questions regarding the presentation of the story (e.g. How significant is the whole story in Muhammad's life, and how much space should be dedicated to it? A sentence? A line? A paragraph?).
Regardless of the story, Sura Al-Najm is a nice one. I read the commentary of this Sura from Tafsir al-Mizan(this is the one I like, but there are many other good ones as well). First thing I noticed was that the Arabic words sometimes can not be accurately translated into one English word (but rather should be translated into a phrase) and thus the available English translations do not faithfully present that. Verses 7-17 are interesting! It is an interesting exercise to figure out which pronoun refers to which person. For me, it was like those story books in which nothing becomes clear until the last point and the person you guess should be guilty turns out to be innocent :) Anyways, the context of these verses and the following ones(all having the same rythm) are not in anyway becoming close to a "satanic verses" theme; the text aims conveying information on a different issue.
Cheers, --
Aminz 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know. Though I am irked by the double standards at work here – Islamofascism, New antisemitism, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and so on – I am inclined to let them be for now. I don't like scare quotes and weaselly disclaimers in titles. But I guess it's a matter of choosing your battles, and I am more concerned about the subtle ways in which POV is pushed into content ( Sabra and Shatila massacre is a particularly appalling example) than about the relatively obvious ways it betrays itself in article titles.
If you're asking me whether Islamofascism should exist in the first place, my answer is yes. My only criteria in this respect is service to the reader. If it's something you hear about, you should be able to find out more about it on Wikipedia.-- G-Dett 15:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is similar in some respects in that it's a lightening-rod word for a lot of people, but it's very different because most who use it don't pursue an extended comparison between Islamism and Italian fascism (the original fascism). It may simply be that "fascism," like "ethnic cleansing," has come further along in becoming a generic political term than "apartheid," or it may be that those who speak of "Israeli apartheid" see more of a point-by-point similarity than those who speak of "Islamofascism," but figuring out which it is really beside the point. What matters is that secondary sources don't really talk about "the Islamofascism analogy." Or do they? If they do, then there's a case for treating it as such. But anyway we're talking about this article here. I thought we agreed there shouldn't be linkage lest we join those who have violated WP:POINT in pursuit of "system-wide NPOV."
Re; "I do not believe that articles about political epithets are in most cases encyclopedic." A direct question: Would you join me in a motion to delete Islamofascism on these grounds? BYT 10:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
<chirping of crickets follows for an extended period> BYT 10:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider: Some people can't take a joke. Anyway: This is my point, Pro. Every time I suggest something you and I could actually work on together, there's either silence or a response like the one above. So presumably we've now found some common ground. Could I ask you to make an investment in this relationship by taking action?
I've reached out to you several times to build up some kind of trust and a working relationship here. I asked if you would work with me on creating a draft of the disputed "Story of the Cranes" material -- you ignored that and went back to the revert button, which, I note for the record, you are using again this very morning. I asked you to work with me on crafting the mediation language for that passage: nothing happened. I posed the question above; you ignored it (until I cracked that 'crickets' joke) and went back to focusing on what you didn't like about my work on Muhammad.
This is my fundamental misgiving about you. If you refuse to collaborate with an editor, under any circumstances, it seems fair to assume there are larger biases in place.
Somewere between crickets chirping and you lecturing me there is, I think, a working relationship here. Are you actually, truly willing to work with me to find it? I hope so. It would be a gesture of good faith if you were to nominate Islamofascism for deletion. If you feel you can't do that, could you please leave a message here explaining why? BYT 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it. BYT 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop putting parens in articles. My ol college English prof said if it's important enough to mention, don't minimalized it with parens. Tks. Rlevse 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Reguarding your recent comment, it may be better if you post on the talk page from now on, instead of on the main page. That is where most people made their statements.-- Sefringle Talk 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Say, Bless sins, three people have nominated me for adminship. Supposing I accepted one of these days, would you trust me with the tools? Are there concerns you would have which I could address? Because we've disagreed a lot, you seem like a better person to ask than someone with whom I've never been in editorial conflict. Proabivouac 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I stand corrected. And my second point? BYT 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the dialogue on this. We have different perceptions of events, but I suppose we should get used to that. BYT 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Scouting project keeps a handy list of cites ready to copy and paste at WP:S-CIT. Have a great day! -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The initial RfM was on whether or not to say the event happened. You stopped trying to compromise or even edit the article, preferring to post negative statements about me at the mediation page as your explanation of why I, the most active person in the conversation and the one with the most sources at his disposal, should not be included. While you were busy with that, we compromised and no longer stated it was historical. You continued to insist on "mediation," though you had not noticed this. Then itaqallah (a sometimes quite reasonable editor who shares your POV on many issues) agreed to a compromise version I had written, instating it himself. Even Aminz let it go from that point on. Now you say that in order to edit, I have to agree to mediation, when I have been actively brokering compromises and explaining my reasoning with multiple scholarly sources since the beginning? All you have done is editorialize on that article. I have not inserted my own POV at all, which I could easily do as Rodinson expresses it. What forbearance have you shown? You called the verses "enigmatic" and included a post-900 Islamic argument against historicity, when there are multiple stronger arguments for historicity that I have not included. Who is inserting his POV? You are. Arrow740 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody. We did talk. We did RFC. It's clear where this is going. Just a straight answer: Are people going to engage in mediation or not? BYT 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk page shows this has been under discussion since July 26. (I'm in there too, plenty -- go check -- and although I'm duly flattered, I'm not sure why you think the discussion doesn't exist when I'm not actually posting on the talk page.)
Anyway, about the whole "how on earth do we know what's in dispute" thing. I've got an idea. You frame an initial draft of the mediation sentence as you'd like it to appear right here on this page, I'll offer my comments, and that way we'll work together on it, and we'll eventually both be clear on it. Then we can present it to others and see what they think. Are you up for building sandcastles, or just stomping on them?
By the way (and for the record) this is where it always lands, Pro. I ask you directly for help in coming up with a compromise draft of something that you and I can both stand behind, and you levitate up to the troposphere again, to confer with who knows what otherworldly forces. BYT 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, who are you saying is a sock, User:Dean Wormer? Proabivouac 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant "new to this argument." Just check the history. BYT 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us! |
Cyrusc 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid is commendable. I also empathize with the concerns you raise about my idea of documenting our argumentation. (e.g., concern w/splitting conversation, need to be inclusive and not let people feel cut out) If we do document the pro/con views, and sharing your weariness over long summaries, I agree that we should edit it to be concise (or link to longer explanations already hashed out in Talk). But given the complexity of the arguments, and the difficulty of finding a process to revolve this dispute, I think it's worth a try. IOW, it will tax more of your patience, but hopefully be more efficient in the end. Take care. HG | Talk 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) PS forgot to mention that when you said "Agree strongly. BYT 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)" it wasn't clear from the formatting what (who?) you were agreeing with. HG | Talk 10:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, hi, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to ask you about a recent edit to AoIA. Would you mind restoring the word 'Policy' in the Part A. heading? Also, I assume you don't mind my writing to your user page. Didn't seem worth raising it on the article Talk. Take care, HG | Talk 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Wiki Award | ||
For your exceptional contributions to article quality on Wikipedia, especially on getting Harry S. Truman to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. Rlevse 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
Nice edits to the Burnham article. We are hoping it passes the GA process. Thanks for your help. -- Ctatkinson 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Brandon :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad you're working on Pale Fire.
I changed one of your sentences, and you more or less reverted it. This is the present version:
'What the note to line 894 does feature, however, is an episode involving, among other people, a nosy academic who asks Kinbote/Charles/Botkin/Botkine unwelcome questions about his past, and then theorizes that Kinbote's name is a playful reassembly of the letters in "Botkin" or "Botkine."'
Here are the reasons for my changes. For one thing, I don't think "feature" is the right word. It's defined as "To have or include as a prominent part or characteristic" ( American Heritage Dictionary). I don't think there's anything prominent about the Botkin(e) bit.
Also, Prof. Pardon doesn't ask Kinbote questions about his past before bringing up "Botkin"—nobody does. And we don't know whether he's being nosy or not. The story we're discussing is that our narrator was a Russian refugee, Botkin, and then changed his name. We don't know who he told that he's Zemblan or how he justified the name change—he might have said himself that it was an anagram. So Pardon may be saying things he thought were incontrovertible public knowledge, only to find that Kinbote is now delusional on the subject.
Likewise we don't know that he "theorizes" that "Kinbote" is an anagram. He says he "was under the impression", which could mean that he had theorized it himself, but more suggests that someone had told him that (maybe even Kinbote himself, as I said). He also says nothing about it being playful, as you called it.
Finally, I don't think the narrator's name is the place to stress the confusion over his real identity. it's fine to just call him Kinbote. If we do want to make this point, I think we should do it only once, not again in the next paragraph. And we can leave out Botkine, which is just the French-style romanization of the same name.
What do you think? — JerryFriedman 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and put your oar in there. Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that some of the people you believe to be harrassing you have been lectured by you in the past about minute points of Wiki-etiquette and warned repeatedly by you about various possible policy violations.
They are (I am) not harassing you so much as trying to pick up the relationship as members of the reality-based community ... to establish whether you intend to continue both violating rules (like probation) and advocating sternly, at precisely the same time, for the importance of other people following them.
Perhaps you could comment on this. Since you mention so prominently the importance of apologies above, I wonder about the degree to which you feel one might be appropriate in your own situation, and to people with whom you have disagreed in the past.
It sounds like you plan to stick around, and if that's the case, I think there's a good chance that could be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. For my part, I am certainly sorry about problems I may have brought to this editing relationship, and hope we can begin, as it were, with a clean slate. At the same time, I think I would like to hear directly from you about the issues I've raised here. BYT 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometime over the next day or so we should look at HST's article and see what shape it's in after being on the main page. Rlevse 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Burnham article made FA, thanks for the help. I looked at what you wanted to collaborate on next and chose Beowulf. I know nothing about it, but chose it from the list you made on Aug 31 on my talk page. I did a few edits to The White Album too. I'll do what I can on Beowulf. For starters, the caption to the Eadils image is WAY WAY too long. Rlevse 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have the year, publisher, city, etc for this "Reverend Dr. Michael Forster, "The Origins of the Scouting Movement."", I can't find it on the web. Rlevse 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pls see rv war on HST article, and talk page. Would appreciate input. Rlevse 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid. |
Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.
If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.
Hi BYT, it looks like we might get back into the renaming discussion. Glad you're around, esp since you know some of the history and worked hard on the synthesis, restructuring etc. By the way, through all that, didn't you ever feel that you might accept one of the Type II alternative titles?
Mind if I bother you about one thing? When writing in Talk, it's recommended to avoid over-formatting. If you could write in paragraphs, instead of bullet points, it would make the conversation overall easier to read and more concise. If need be, you could add (1) numbers or (a) letters to distinguish your various points. Sound ok? Thanks. Respectfully, HG | Talk 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't keep track of all the groups and subgroups of potential titles. I think we're reaching a point where specificity would help to build consensus. Personally, I could live with, and find ample precedent for, Israeli apartheid controversy. Not debate, not seminar, not process, not comparison. None of that stuff works for me, it's like calling the article Alleged segregation-based unpleasantness among euphemistically unspecified Middle Eastern parties. We wouldn't throw those kinds of fig-leaves on any comparable topic. I can't speak for any of the other editors, but you asked, so I'm telling you: that's how I see it. It's a controversy. It would work to call it that. BYT 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a renewed controversy at Islamofascism and Neo-Fascism and religion. I think your comments and ideas would be of value. Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks.-- Cberlet ( talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone concerned about the recent editing at Muhammad should see the section above: User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov#Mediation. BYT, you refused to talk on the talk page, instead saying that we needed "mediation." In doing so you ignored the rule that we are supposed to use talk pages before mediation. The concensus version was the result of amicable compromise on ... the talk page. You need to read it and respect the work Aminz, itaqallah, WilyD, and I put in. We've been though all this before. Arrow740 ( talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
Hope you are well and doing fine. Regarding Satanic verses, please take a look at the new version of Satanic_verses#Academic_views, where a wide range of views is mentioned. I don't think singling out Burton would do justice to the matter. My idea is to mention little details so that the reader becomes curious and reads the whole article. I guess if you add one argument in favor, Arrow will add another one in reverse and .... Maybe the best way is not to mention any of the arguments... -- Be happy!! ( talk) 10:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Salaam Aminz -- I'll look it all over -- thanks for the links. Ma-salaam, BYT ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
BYT, thank you for your support; I believe your post really helped. It took some time as I suspected, but I believe that it worked out reasonably well for the lede sentence. Other areas still require work but maybe for someone else. Take a look (including talk) if you haven't seen it for a while. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Salam Alaykum,
We're working on Imam Ali article to make it a good article. Can you please help me with it. God bless you-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
....
I have seen that you seem to edit article on Maliki.
Please help edit the Maliki rulings of
Salat and
Islamic_views_on_sin . Thanks.
Verycuriousboy (
talk) 05:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, tags don't remain on articles until every single person agrees with every item in the article; rather, they remain until a consensus develops over the contents, or as long as unanswered objections remain to them. In the case of the article in question, all your objections have either been accomodated or responded to, sometimes multiple times, and simply asking the question again and again doesn't indicate any new issue. In addition, the consensus regarding the article content has been established. Finally, objections based on personal numbering schemes are meaningless. If you have any new issues, and want to suggest article changes based on that, please raise them on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel I'm attributing positions to you that aren't yours, Jayjg. Every time I've proposed including material about Gandhi's position on Zionism, however, you've rejected the idea. Since I don't want to put words in your mouth, could you briefly explain why you feel we should not, in Zionism, summarize Gandhi's position, which shows up in Anti-Zionism? WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize, in the main article, all major Points of View in a "criticism of..." article. BYT ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I didn't notice you adding the notice to my page. Regarding the mediation, I notice you have only included me in it, even though several other people, including Emmanuelm, Ceedjee, Gzukier and TelAviv1 have voiced opinions on this issue. In fact, your removal of the material in question was reverted by someone else, not me. Please ensure that the proposed mediation includes all interested parties. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink ( talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I think that there is a systematic bias, but it operates at the article creation and expansion level, due to the demographics of Wikipedia. I am quite sure that once there is a well-written and comprehensive article on a mosque it will have no more problems than other articles to become a FA or TFA. Unfortunately I am not really interested in co-writing an article about the Mother Mosque of America. I am more interest in articles related to film, Africa, and international economics and that is also where my expertise is. Having said that, I have watchlisted this article, and maybe I will add tiny bits and support a nomination for FA or TFA, as long as the final article is well-written and comprehensive. Голубое сало/Blue Salo ( talk) 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
hi Brandon I need some help in this article Criticism of Muhammad I want to add some sites that response to the critic but my links keep been removed without god reason.could you help me ? thank you Peacekeeper-89 ( talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:A2096399.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Beyond mere christianity.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 06:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your post at WP Palestine talk and so would like to give you a warm welcome back. You'd be happy to know that WP Palestine has improved considerably in the last year and we'd be delighted if you could work with us again. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! It's okay, if you prefer to keep it open for a while longer, I don't have a problem with it. I closed it because it's been a week (move discussions usually stay at Wikipedia:Requested moves for a week before they're closed), and with that level of opposition there's really no way a consensus for the move is going to be formed by extending the discussion. That's just my opinion, of course, and you're free to disagree with it. Jafeluv ( talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
... When I re-read what I typed, it came across as cold, and I didn't mean that to be the case. Is there something I can help with was more what I was trying to ask? — Ched : ? 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
After doing more reading, and more research, I did find two more pages where some people can provide better input into your questions.
I don't know if that help you or not, but I thought I'd try. Cheers. — Ched : ? 10:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
User:BrandonYusufToropov has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is a friendly notice from me that a discussion is taking place here in which you might be interested. Groupthink ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on American Terror requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Beeshoney (
talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Islamiccomicslogopublicdomain.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi BrandonYusufToropov! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Your user page is intended to tell others about yourself in connection with your Wikipedia activities. See Wikipedia:User pages.
It is fairly clear that your personal opinions about the Qur'an do not fit the gu9idelines. I contemplated proposing for deletion, but then decided it would be better to simply ask you to remove it, as it is highly likely you were simply unaware that it is not suitable material for a user page. Do you agree?
For the record, this request is prompted by a written request to Wikimedia, VRTS ticket # 2014010510000944 although I personally agree this material is not suitable. I do think it is quite acceptable to include the userboxes, as they fit in with the exception A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It is about this sentences attributed to Chaim Weizmann, the leading Zionist in the realm of the British Empire
“With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )
In
Talk:Zionism/Archive_11#Cite_for_Weizmann_quote you have referenced several books where this quote is being cited.
I assume that you have read all those books or have access to them, and can tell if the authors indicate when and where and to whom and in in what context Weizmann is supposed to have said or written that.
While this sentence reflects truthfully the origin of Zionism as a strain of European
colonialism, in the true spirit of
Theodor Herzl (who promised the "Jewish State", if established in Palestine, to be a "for Europe a piece of the wall against Asia, doing outpost duty of culture against barbarism" (my translation from
"Der Judenstaat" Leipzig/Berlin 1896, page 29)), to be reliably attributable to Weizmann, we should be able when and where, to whom and in which context Weizmann is supposed to have said or written this.
So I would be grateful if you could provide this necessary information. Without this, it sinks into the class of "quotes" attributed to famous people who really might have said this, but which can't be found in their actual works. See the famous sentence attributed to
Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will do my utmost to defend your right to say it", which according to researchers does not originate from Voltaire himself, but from a biographer who coined it to describe Voltaire's attitude to his critics and other opponents.
--
L.Willms (
talk) 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently released records of the Jewish Agency Executive reveal, for example, the thinking of Chaim Weizmann after the Balfour declaration of 1917: "with regard to the Arab question - the British told me that there are several hundred thousand negroes there but that this matter has no significance" (quoted by Arthur Ruppin).20
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Re your inquiry, [1] I'd be happy to share my personal perspectives on the subjects you've written about, but prefer to do so by e-mail. Not that I have anything particularly controversial to say, but as I prefer that others keep their views separate from their editing, I feel obliged to do so myself. Proabivouac 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You appear to have weighed in on issues with The Holocaust's article before, can you weigh in on the use of the word 'slaughter,' as seen here? — Parhamr 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you have listed this for FAC twice. I would like to get this to FA too. I am putting all the refs in proper format now, removing dead links and mark them as citation needed. Then I'll find any needed refs that I can. Then I plan to rework the article, including getting most if not all refs out of the lead. A good lead needs few if any refs. Then I'll do final FAC checks. I've gotten nine articles to FA status. Let me know if you'd like to help. Respond here please, I have a watch on your page now. Rlevse 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. BYT 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed or deleted all "Citation needed" tags. Steel showdown with Supreme Court is next on my list. Thanks again for the help. BYT 10:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's where we are at and the next steps, basically, the article is too long: 1) the lead is too long and doesn't summarize the article, it needs trimmed and made a summary 2) the TOC is long, see if it can be shortened 3) copyedit, avoid all those parens, make prose smoother 4) wikilink full dates, like August 04, 2007 5) every section and all but the smallest paragraphs need refs. Best to use the ones we already have if they apply
We need to cut about 10-15k out of it, if we have to we can make subarticles, but see what you can do on the above steps first. Use Gerald R. Ford as a guide, it's an FA.
Also, look at the first two FAC failures and see if anything still applies. Did you notice I objected on the first two runs-;) Rlevse 15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Any more issues we should work before we nom for FAC? Rlevse 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask a few more people to look it over. Hoary would like a bit more time. I'm currently planning to nom it on Sat, 11 Aug. Rlevse 09:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion that you might want to weigh in on, Talk:Harry_S._Truman#The_.22Roswell_Incident.22, thanks. WikiDon 05:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think this is a partisan religious source, then you're terribly mistaken. Arrow740 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This [2] is an unfortunate edit summary. In general it works better to just describe your edit, and use the talk page for dialog. And even at that, it's just an editing disagreement, not a conspiracy against you. It's also odd to complain of being reverted while yourself reverting over unrelated edits that only corrected mistakes in the interwiki linking. Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Your disingenuous responses to RFM for Muhammad (From BYT to User:Proabivouac:)
I really had expected more of you.
The dispute is, of course, about the appropriate description of the "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" material in Muhammad, a dispute that has been ongoing, and that has involved you personally, since approximately July 20.
Your claiming not to understand the nature of the RFM, or the conflict, is deeply disappointing and, frankly, more than a little disturbing, as I had thought of you as a person who brought a certain intellectual integrity to these matters.
On a more practical note: One either does or doesn't agree to take part in mediation. Which is it, please? BYT 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Make it routine, then, Arrow. Make it just as boring as all hell. Sign on for mediation and work out a draft that results from actual collaboration with an editor with whom you happen to disagree. BYT 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
I hope you are fine and everything is going well with you. Thanks for helping with the dispute on Muhammad article. There are some undiscussed fundamental questions regarding the presentation of the story (e.g. How significant is the whole story in Muhammad's life, and how much space should be dedicated to it? A sentence? A line? A paragraph?).
Regardless of the story, Sura Al-Najm is a nice one. I read the commentary of this Sura from Tafsir al-Mizan(this is the one I like, but there are many other good ones as well). First thing I noticed was that the Arabic words sometimes can not be accurately translated into one English word (but rather should be translated into a phrase) and thus the available English translations do not faithfully present that. Verses 7-17 are interesting! It is an interesting exercise to figure out which pronoun refers to which person. For me, it was like those story books in which nothing becomes clear until the last point and the person you guess should be guilty turns out to be innocent :) Anyways, the context of these verses and the following ones(all having the same rythm) are not in anyway becoming close to a "satanic verses" theme; the text aims conveying information on a different issue.
Cheers, --
Aminz 09:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know. Though I am irked by the double standards at work here – Islamofascism, New antisemitism, but Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and so on – I am inclined to let them be for now. I don't like scare quotes and weaselly disclaimers in titles. But I guess it's a matter of choosing your battles, and I am more concerned about the subtle ways in which POV is pushed into content ( Sabra and Shatila massacre is a particularly appalling example) than about the relatively obvious ways it betrays itself in article titles.
If you're asking me whether Islamofascism should exist in the first place, my answer is yes. My only criteria in this respect is service to the reader. If it's something you hear about, you should be able to find out more about it on Wikipedia.-- G-Dett 15:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Islamofascism" is similar in some respects in that it's a lightening-rod word for a lot of people, but it's very different because most who use it don't pursue an extended comparison between Islamism and Italian fascism (the original fascism). It may simply be that "fascism," like "ethnic cleansing," has come further along in becoming a generic political term than "apartheid," or it may be that those who speak of "Israeli apartheid" see more of a point-by-point similarity than those who speak of "Islamofascism," but figuring out which it is really beside the point. What matters is that secondary sources don't really talk about "the Islamofascism analogy." Or do they? If they do, then there's a case for treating it as such. But anyway we're talking about this article here. I thought we agreed there shouldn't be linkage lest we join those who have violated WP:POINT in pursuit of "system-wide NPOV."
Re; "I do not believe that articles about political epithets are in most cases encyclopedic." A direct question: Would you join me in a motion to delete Islamofascism on these grounds? BYT 10:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
<chirping of crickets follows for an extended period> BYT 10:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider: Some people can't take a joke. Anyway: This is my point, Pro. Every time I suggest something you and I could actually work on together, there's either silence or a response like the one above. So presumably we've now found some common ground. Could I ask you to make an investment in this relationship by taking action?
I've reached out to you several times to build up some kind of trust and a working relationship here. I asked if you would work with me on creating a draft of the disputed "Story of the Cranes" material -- you ignored that and went back to the revert button, which, I note for the record, you are using again this very morning. I asked you to work with me on crafting the mediation language for that passage: nothing happened. I posed the question above; you ignored it (until I cracked that 'crickets' joke) and went back to focusing on what you didn't like about my work on Muhammad.
This is my fundamental misgiving about you. If you refuse to collaborate with an editor, under any circumstances, it seems fair to assume there are larger biases in place.
Somewere between crickets chirping and you lecturing me there is, I think, a working relationship here. Are you actually, truly willing to work with me to find it? I hope so. It would be a gesture of good faith if you were to nominate Islamofascism for deletion. If you feel you can't do that, could you please leave a message here explaining why? BYT 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it. BYT 20:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop putting parens in articles. My ol college English prof said if it's important enough to mention, don't minimalized it with parens. Tks. Rlevse 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Reguarding your recent comment, it may be better if you post on the talk page from now on, instead of on the main page. That is where most people made their statements.-- Sefringle Talk 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Say, Bless sins, three people have nominated me for adminship. Supposing I accepted one of these days, would you trust me with the tools? Are there concerns you would have which I could address? Because we've disagreed a lot, you seem like a better person to ask than someone with whom I've never been in editorial conflict. Proabivouac 06:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I stand corrected. And my second point? BYT 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the dialogue on this. We have different perceptions of events, but I suppose we should get used to that. BYT 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Scouting project keeps a handy list of cites ready to copy and paste at WP:S-CIT. Have a great day! -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The initial RfM was on whether or not to say the event happened. You stopped trying to compromise or even edit the article, preferring to post negative statements about me at the mediation page as your explanation of why I, the most active person in the conversation and the one with the most sources at his disposal, should not be included. While you were busy with that, we compromised and no longer stated it was historical. You continued to insist on "mediation," though you had not noticed this. Then itaqallah (a sometimes quite reasonable editor who shares your POV on many issues) agreed to a compromise version I had written, instating it himself. Even Aminz let it go from that point on. Now you say that in order to edit, I have to agree to mediation, when I have been actively brokering compromises and explaining my reasoning with multiple scholarly sources since the beginning? All you have done is editorialize on that article. I have not inserted my own POV at all, which I could easily do as Rodinson expresses it. What forbearance have you shown? You called the verses "enigmatic" and included a post-900 Islamic argument against historicity, when there are multiple stronger arguments for historicity that I have not included. Who is inserting his POV? You are. Arrow740 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi everybody. We did talk. We did RFC. It's clear where this is going. Just a straight answer: Are people going to engage in mediation or not? BYT 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk page shows this has been under discussion since July 26. (I'm in there too, plenty -- go check -- and although I'm duly flattered, I'm not sure why you think the discussion doesn't exist when I'm not actually posting on the talk page.)
Anyway, about the whole "how on earth do we know what's in dispute" thing. I've got an idea. You frame an initial draft of the mediation sentence as you'd like it to appear right here on this page, I'll offer my comments, and that way we'll work together on it, and we'll eventually both be clear on it. Then we can present it to others and see what they think. Are you up for building sandcastles, or just stomping on them?
By the way (and for the record) this is where it always lands, Pro. I ask you directly for help in coming up with a compromise draft of something that you and I can both stand behind, and you levitate up to the troposphere again, to confer with who knows what otherworldly forces. BYT 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, who are you saying is a sock, User:Dean Wormer? Proabivouac 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant "new to this argument." Just check the history. BYT 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us! |
Cyrusc 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid is commendable. I also empathize with the concerns you raise about my idea of documenting our argumentation. (e.g., concern w/splitting conversation, need to be inclusive and not let people feel cut out) If we do document the pro/con views, and sharing your weariness over long summaries, I agree that we should edit it to be concise (or link to longer explanations already hashed out in Talk). But given the complexity of the arguments, and the difficulty of finding a process to revolve this dispute, I think it's worth a try. IOW, it will tax more of your patience, but hopefully be more efficient in the end. Take care. HG | Talk 10:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) PS forgot to mention that when you said "Agree strongly. BYT 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)" it wasn't clear from the formatting what (who?) you were agreeing with. HG | Talk 10:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, hi, hope you're doing well. Just wanted to ask you about a recent edit to AoIA. Would you mind restoring the word 'Policy' in the Part A. heading? Also, I assume you don't mind my writing to your user page. Didn't seem worth raising it on the article Talk. Take care, HG | Talk 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Wiki Award | ||
For your exceptional contributions to article quality on Wikipedia, especially on getting Harry S. Truman to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. Rlevse 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
Nice edits to the Burnham article. We are hoping it passes the GA process. Thanks for your help. -- Ctatkinson 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Brandon :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm glad you're working on Pale Fire.
I changed one of your sentences, and you more or less reverted it. This is the present version:
'What the note to line 894 does feature, however, is an episode involving, among other people, a nosy academic who asks Kinbote/Charles/Botkin/Botkine unwelcome questions about his past, and then theorizes that Kinbote's name is a playful reassembly of the letters in "Botkin" or "Botkine."'
Here are the reasons for my changes. For one thing, I don't think "feature" is the right word. It's defined as "To have or include as a prominent part or characteristic" ( American Heritage Dictionary). I don't think there's anything prominent about the Botkin(e) bit.
Also, Prof. Pardon doesn't ask Kinbote questions about his past before bringing up "Botkin"—nobody does. And we don't know whether he's being nosy or not. The story we're discussing is that our narrator was a Russian refugee, Botkin, and then changed his name. We don't know who he told that he's Zemblan or how he justified the name change—he might have said himself that it was an anagram. So Pardon may be saying things he thought were incontrovertible public knowledge, only to find that Kinbote is now delusional on the subject.
Likewise we don't know that he "theorizes" that "Kinbote" is an anagram. He says he "was under the impression", which could mean that he had theorized it himself, but more suggests that someone had told him that (maybe even Kinbote himself, as I said). He also says nothing about it being playful, as you called it.
Finally, I don't think the narrator's name is the place to stress the confusion over his real identity. it's fine to just call him Kinbote. If we do want to make this point, I think we should do it only once, not again in the next paragraph. And we can leave out Botkine, which is just the French-style romanization of the same name.
What do you think? — JerryFriedman 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and put your oar in there. Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that some of the people you believe to be harrassing you have been lectured by you in the past about minute points of Wiki-etiquette and warned repeatedly by you about various possible policy violations.
They are (I am) not harassing you so much as trying to pick up the relationship as members of the reality-based community ... to establish whether you intend to continue both violating rules (like probation) and advocating sternly, at precisely the same time, for the importance of other people following them.
Perhaps you could comment on this. Since you mention so prominently the importance of apologies above, I wonder about the degree to which you feel one might be appropriate in your own situation, and to people with whom you have disagreed in the past.
It sounds like you plan to stick around, and if that's the case, I think there's a good chance that could be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. For my part, I am certainly sorry about problems I may have brought to this editing relationship, and hope we can begin, as it were, with a clean slate. At the same time, I think I would like to hear directly from you about the issues I've raised here. BYT 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometime over the next day or so we should look at HST's article and see what shape it's in after being on the main page. Rlevse 01:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Burnham article made FA, thanks for the help. I looked at what you wanted to collaborate on next and chose Beowulf. I know nothing about it, but chose it from the list you made on Aug 31 on my talk page. I did a few edits to The White Album too. I'll do what I can on Beowulf. For starters, the caption to the Eadils image is WAY WAY too long. Rlevse 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have the year, publisher, city, etc for this "Reverend Dr. Michael Forster, "The Origins of the Scouting Movement."", I can't find it on the web. Rlevse 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Pls see rv war on HST article, and talk page. Would appreciate input. Rlevse 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you and your family a blessed Eid. |
Your friendly neighborhood Muslim.
If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.
Hi BYT, it looks like we might get back into the renaming discussion. Glad you're around, esp since you know some of the history and worked hard on the synthesis, restructuring etc. By the way, through all that, didn't you ever feel that you might accept one of the Type II alternative titles?
Mind if I bother you about one thing? When writing in Talk, it's recommended to avoid over-formatting. If you could write in paragraphs, instead of bullet points, it would make the conversation overall easier to read and more concise. If need be, you could add (1) numbers or (a) letters to distinguish your various points. Sound ok? Thanks. Respectfully, HG | Talk 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't keep track of all the groups and subgroups of potential titles. I think we're reaching a point where specificity would help to build consensus. Personally, I could live with, and find ample precedent for, Israeli apartheid controversy. Not debate, not seminar, not process, not comparison. None of that stuff works for me, it's like calling the article Alleged segregation-based unpleasantness among euphemistically unspecified Middle Eastern parties. We wouldn't throw those kinds of fig-leaves on any comparable topic. I can't speak for any of the other editors, but you asked, so I'm telling you: that's how I see it. It's a controversy. It would work to call it that. BYT 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a renewed controversy at Islamofascism and Neo-Fascism and religion. I think your comments and ideas would be of value. Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks.-- Cberlet ( talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone concerned about the recent editing at Muhammad should see the section above: User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov#Mediation. BYT, you refused to talk on the talk page, instead saying that we needed "mediation." In doing so you ignored the rule that we are supposed to use talk pages before mediation. The concensus version was the result of amicable compromise on ... the talk page. You need to read it and respect the work Aminz, itaqallah, WilyD, and I put in. We've been though all this before. Arrow740 ( talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
Hope you are well and doing fine. Regarding Satanic verses, please take a look at the new version of Satanic_verses#Academic_views, where a wide range of views is mentioned. I don't think singling out Burton would do justice to the matter. My idea is to mention little details so that the reader becomes curious and reads the whole article. I guess if you add one argument in favor, Arrow will add another one in reverse and .... Maybe the best way is not to mention any of the arguments... -- Be happy!! ( talk) 10:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Salaam Aminz -- I'll look it all over -- thanks for the links. Ma-salaam, BYT ( talk) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
BYT, thank you for your support; I believe your post really helped. It took some time as I suspected, but I believe that it worked out reasonably well for the lede sentence. Other areas still require work but maybe for someone else. Take a look (including talk) if you haven't seen it for a while. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Salam Alaykum,
We're working on Imam Ali article to make it a good article. Can you please help me with it. God bless you-- Seyyed( t- c) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
....
I have seen that you seem to edit article on Maliki.
Please help edit the Maliki rulings of
Salat and
Islamic_views_on_sin . Thanks.
Verycuriousboy (
talk) 05:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Brandon, tags don't remain on articles until every single person agrees with every item in the article; rather, they remain until a consensus develops over the contents, or as long as unanswered objections remain to them. In the case of the article in question, all your objections have either been accomodated or responded to, sometimes multiple times, and simply asking the question again and again doesn't indicate any new issue. In addition, the consensus regarding the article content has been established. Finally, objections based on personal numbering schemes are meaningless. If you have any new issues, and want to suggest article changes based on that, please raise them on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel I'm attributing positions to you that aren't yours, Jayjg. Every time I've proposed including material about Gandhi's position on Zionism, however, you've rejected the idea. Since I don't want to put words in your mouth, could you briefly explain why you feel we should not, in Zionism, summarize Gandhi's position, which shows up in Anti-Zionism? WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize, in the main article, all major Points of View in a "criticism of..." article. BYT ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I didn't notice you adding the notice to my page. Regarding the mediation, I notice you have only included me in it, even though several other people, including Emmanuelm, Ceedjee, Gzukier and TelAviv1 have voiced opinions on this issue. In fact, your removal of the material in question was reverted by someone else, not me. Please ensure that the proposed mediation includes all interested parties. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a friendly notice that a discussion is underway here regarding a topic in which you have previously expressed interest. You are invited to participate in this discussion in order to improve it. I apologize if you did not wish to receive such notices. Groupthink ( talk) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I think that there is a systematic bias, but it operates at the article creation and expansion level, due to the demographics of Wikipedia. I am quite sure that once there is a well-written and comprehensive article on a mosque it will have no more problems than other articles to become a FA or TFA. Unfortunately I am not really interested in co-writing an article about the Mother Mosque of America. I am more interest in articles related to film, Africa, and international economics and that is also where my expertise is. Having said that, I have watchlisted this article, and maybe I will add tiny bits and support a nomination for FA or TFA, as long as the final article is well-written and comprehensive. Голубое сало/Blue Salo ( talk) 17:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
hi Brandon I need some help in this article Criticism of Muhammad I want to add some sites that response to the critic but my links keep been removed without god reason.could you help me ? thank you Peacekeeper-89 ( talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:A2096399.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Beyond mere christianity.PNG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 06:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your post at WP Palestine talk and so would like to give you a warm welcome back. You'd be happy to know that WP Palestine has improved considerably in the last year and we'd be delighted if you could work with us again. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! It's okay, if you prefer to keep it open for a while longer, I don't have a problem with it. I closed it because it's been a week (move discussions usually stay at Wikipedia:Requested moves for a week before they're closed), and with that level of opposition there's really no way a consensus for the move is going to be formed by extending the discussion. That's just my opinion, of course, and you're free to disagree with it. Jafeluv ( talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
... When I re-read what I typed, it came across as cold, and I didn't mean that to be the case. Is there something I can help with was more what I was trying to ask? — Ched : ? 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
After doing more reading, and more research, I did find two more pages where some people can provide better input into your questions.
I don't know if that help you or not, but I thought I'd try. Cheers. — Ched : ? 10:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
User:BrandonYusufToropov has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this is a friendly notice from me that a discussion is taking place here in which you might be interested. Groupthink ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on American Terror requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Beeshoney (
talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Islamiccomicslogopublicdomain.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi BrandonYusufToropov! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Your user page is intended to tell others about yourself in connection with your Wikipedia activities. See Wikipedia:User pages.
It is fairly clear that your personal opinions about the Qur'an do not fit the gu9idelines. I contemplated proposing for deletion, but then decided it would be better to simply ask you to remove it, as it is highly likely you were simply unaware that it is not suitable material for a user page. Do you agree?
For the record, this request is prompted by a written request to Wikimedia, VRTS ticket # 2014010510000944 although I personally agree this material is not suitable. I do think it is quite acceptable to include the userboxes, as they fit in with the exception A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It is about this sentences attributed to Chaim Weizmann, the leading Zionist in the realm of the British Empire
“With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )
In
Talk:Zionism/Archive_11#Cite_for_Weizmann_quote you have referenced several books where this quote is being cited.
I assume that you have read all those books or have access to them, and can tell if the authors indicate when and where and to whom and in in what context Weizmann is supposed to have said or written that.
While this sentence reflects truthfully the origin of Zionism as a strain of European
colonialism, in the true spirit of
Theodor Herzl (who promised the "Jewish State", if established in Palestine, to be a "for Europe a piece of the wall against Asia, doing outpost duty of culture against barbarism" (my translation from
"Der Judenstaat" Leipzig/Berlin 1896, page 29)), to be reliably attributable to Weizmann, we should be able when and where, to whom and in which context Weizmann is supposed to have said or written this.
So I would be grateful if you could provide this necessary information. Without this, it sinks into the class of "quotes" attributed to famous people who really might have said this, but which can't be found in their actual works. See the famous sentence attributed to
Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will do my utmost to defend your right to say it", which according to researchers does not originate from Voltaire himself, but from a biographer who coined it to describe Voltaire's attitude to his critics and other opponents.
--
L.Willms (
talk) 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently released records of the Jewish Agency Executive reveal, for example, the thinking of Chaim Weizmann after the Balfour declaration of 1917: "with regard to the Arab question - the British told me that there are several hundred thousand negroes there but that this matter has no significance" (quoted by Arthur Ruppin).20
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!