Moohey! Greatings Fellow Earthlings!
{{
reqphoto}}
Current Wiki projects do not allow original works, which is a great and smart idea. What good is an Encyclopædia if it is full of fiction ... makes the whole thing irrelevant. Now, people might attempt to submit their own stuff in the past there … because there could be a need for a forum for non-point of view research requiring educated, non-point of view critiquing (both positive and negative). Wiki does have a good community of a wide variety of individuals … a very small portion might not mind being a peer to critique new works (research papers and such).
I am not talking about opinion blogs or anything like that. There is much of that out there already. I am talking about stuff that is more than just some bloke’s rant of the day. I am talking about research papers and ideas … that contain references for some of the source data they based their research on (total fiction or opinions with no references to any points on their work would be deleted).
Just a crazy idea … might get no feedback … but something to think about if yee is insane like me. ;-) Nonprof. Frinkus 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
They are always welcome. Truth is learned through mistakes and earned through constant vigilance.
The information you added to Islam is intersting, and I encourage you to add it, reworded to the page. However, as it stands, it is a copyright infringement, and cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Thank you. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
it is not copy infringement in my country... - it is a copyright enfringement, unless it is a very brief quote, usually used for the purpose of quotes. However, as the text stood, it was an entire paragraph, that, in your words, was "quoted word for word". That's why wikipedia often only quotes from Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 version, because anything after that is illegal. I will add the usual warning template below so you can see the wording. Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the [[{{{1}}}]] article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!- Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Szvest 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that information is missing from the article then you need to productively add such information, and not just copy and paste most of an entire passage from somewhere else--wherever that may be (the afore mentioned encyclopedia or http://www.crystalinks.com/islamic.html which might be another copy of the same). Integrate the new information and get rid of the duplicate information. Also try to stay away from weasel words, POV additions in brackets, and poor formatting. Clearly, as you've been told the copy and paste thing is a no-no, but there is no reason why you can't try to actually edit the entry on your own. Of course be prepared to discuss your edits, especially when alot of editors have issues with them. If you are in fact acting in good faith then I'm sure you will come back to the page and edit responsibly after your 3RR ban is over. Good luck. PelleSmith 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR rule does not include vandalism. If an article is vandalized, it may be reverted more than three times. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. To sign your comment try four of tilda signs that is ~~~~. ابراهيم 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, I figure this is all instructions there is to it Wikipedia:Barnstars -- Stor stark7 Talk 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that clearly states with groups are declared holds the official “take” on any given piece of subject matter? If there is, what does it take to be added to this list?
The reason I ask, is because I have asked this question recently, but no one cares to respond on something that is extremely important when it comes to biases and such. For example, many scientific disciplines are involved when it comes to outer-space (anything beyond our planet Earth) … but only one organization … the “International Astronomical Union” that has a say on whether Pluto is a “ Planet” or newly invented “ Dwarf planet” (even going so far as ruling that these two words are to be treated as a single English word, and not an adjective in front of a noun). Reality is not determined by popularity contest, and with less than 5% of the IAU voting on this issue, seems suspect that only one body controls the official “take” here.
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for you in regards to your "if I could do anything...". You would "would make darn certain that image was historical and relevant" but you would only want to do it with the face uncovered? Take this proposition: the most historically important tradition of drawing Muhammad is with his face covered. Would you rather use a picture with his face uncovered even if such images were less historically representative? Now, if you don't accept the proposition that's another argument... but I want your answer assuming you accept it.
Also, would you agree that since images of Muhammad are almost exclusively shown in texts that the image on this page should be from the page of a text so that readers will not assume that they are hung on walls like Christian tradition does? gren グレン 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [1]
Your signature is not Wikilinked, which makes it difficult for other readers to access your talk page, or even to see who made your posts. You can fix this at Special:Preferences. If you need help, just reply here and I'll do what I can, but you probably just need to uncheck "raw signature". Thanks, -- Clubjuggle T/ C 07:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I might appear to bounce from unrelated article to unrelated article … I am merely a single tiny person in the ocean of the world adding/updating Wikipedia. I just see small things here in there, typos, POV that needs buffing to be NPOV. If only I had more time and could be more helpful. C'est la vie. Nonprof. Frinkus ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Moohey! Greatings Fellow Earthlings!
{{
reqphoto}}
Current Wiki projects do not allow original works, which is a great and smart idea. What good is an Encyclopædia if it is full of fiction ... makes the whole thing irrelevant. Now, people might attempt to submit their own stuff in the past there … because there could be a need for a forum for non-point of view research requiring educated, non-point of view critiquing (both positive and negative). Wiki does have a good community of a wide variety of individuals … a very small portion might not mind being a peer to critique new works (research papers and such).
I am not talking about opinion blogs or anything like that. There is much of that out there already. I am talking about stuff that is more than just some bloke’s rant of the day. I am talking about research papers and ideas … that contain references for some of the source data they based their research on (total fiction or opinions with no references to any points on their work would be deleted).
Just a crazy idea … might get no feedback … but something to think about if yee is insane like me. ;-) Nonprof. Frinkus 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
They are always welcome. Truth is learned through mistakes and earned through constant vigilance.
The information you added to Islam is intersting, and I encourage you to add it, reworded to the page. However, as it stands, it is a copyright infringement, and cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Thank you. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
it is not copy infringement in my country... - it is a copyright enfringement, unless it is a very brief quote, usually used for the purpose of quotes. However, as the text stood, it was an entire paragraph, that, in your words, was "quoted word for word". That's why wikipedia often only quotes from Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 version, because anything after that is illegal. I will add the usual warning template below so you can see the wording. Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the [[{{{1}}}]] article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!- Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Szvest 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that information is missing from the article then you need to productively add such information, and not just copy and paste most of an entire passage from somewhere else--wherever that may be (the afore mentioned encyclopedia or http://www.crystalinks.com/islamic.html which might be another copy of the same). Integrate the new information and get rid of the duplicate information. Also try to stay away from weasel words, POV additions in brackets, and poor formatting. Clearly, as you've been told the copy and paste thing is a no-no, but there is no reason why you can't try to actually edit the entry on your own. Of course be prepared to discuss your edits, especially when alot of editors have issues with them. If you are in fact acting in good faith then I'm sure you will come back to the page and edit responsibly after your 3RR ban is over. Good luck. PelleSmith 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR rule does not include vandalism. If an article is vandalized, it may be reverted more than three times. - Patstuart (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. To sign your comment try four of tilda signs that is ~~~~. ابراهيم 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, I figure this is all instructions there is to it Wikipedia:Barnstars -- Stor stark7 Talk 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that clearly states with groups are declared holds the official “take” on any given piece of subject matter? If there is, what does it take to be added to this list?
The reason I ask, is because I have asked this question recently, but no one cares to respond on something that is extremely important when it comes to biases and such. For example, many scientific disciplines are involved when it comes to outer-space (anything beyond our planet Earth) … but only one organization … the “International Astronomical Union” that has a say on whether Pluto is a “ Planet” or newly invented “ Dwarf planet” (even going so far as ruling that these two words are to be treated as a single English word, and not an adjective in front of a noun). Reality is not determined by popularity contest, and with less than 5% of the IAU voting on this issue, seems suspect that only one body controls the official “take” here.
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a question for you in regards to your "if I could do anything...". You would "would make darn certain that image was historical and relevant" but you would only want to do it with the face uncovered? Take this proposition: the most historically important tradition of drawing Muhammad is with his face covered. Would you rather use a picture with his face uncovered even if such images were less historically representative? Now, if you don't accept the proposition that's another argument... but I want your answer assuming you accept it.
Also, would you agree that since images of Muhammad are almost exclusively shown in texts that the image on this page should be from the page of a text so that readers will not assume that they are hung on walls like Christian tradition does? gren グレン 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [1]
Your signature is not Wikilinked, which makes it difficult for other readers to access your talk page, or even to see who made your posts. You can fix this at Special:Preferences. If you need help, just reply here and I'll do what I can, but you probably just need to uncheck "raw signature". Thanks, -- Clubjuggle T/ C 07:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I might appear to bounce from unrelated article to unrelated article … I am merely a single tiny person in the ocean of the world adding/updating Wikipedia. I just see small things here in there, typos, POV that needs buffing to be NPOV. If only I had more time and could be more helpful. C'est la vie. Nonprof. Frinkus ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)