User talk:Aquib American Muslim/Archive 1

To Do
1. Expand on khul' divorce (divorce suit brought by the wife), in Sharia and khul' articles Aquib 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC) ''* Done Aquib 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1.1 Look for other articles that need a link to khul' Aquib 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ''* Done Aquib (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1.2 Cite Quran 2:229 and Hdaith applicable to this subject ''* Done Aquib (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Regarding 12:07, February 18, 2010 92.3.236.8 (talk) Contemplate assertion that an Islamic state is a necessarily a theocracy. It is easy enough for one to become a theocracy, no question. If people elect their leaders and choose to use God's laws as their constitution, is this theocracy? Theocratic democracy? Constitutional democracy? Democracy at its heart is self governance. It requires safeguards to function. Can Sharia safeguard a democracy? Can corporations? Can a constitution? What is it that safeguards a democracy? Ultimately only the people can do that. Aquib 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC) ''*It is Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3. Begin reviewing paragraphs further down in the Sharia article. Aquib 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ''* In Progress Aquib (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ''*Making progress now Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Moved the quote from Dr. Ali Khan's fascinating article from Sharia:Etymology to Sharia:Definitions Aquib (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC) ''*Yep Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

5. Over the past few days, capitalized all instances of the word Sharia within the article, standardized their spelling. Consistency within the article. Aquib (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) ''*Redone Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

6. Subcategorized the different perspectives of what Sharia encompasses. Preparing now to shift some definition under etymology down to definitions. Next, add some etymology - I have learned that one theory of the origin of the word is "path to water" but I don't yet have a proper source. Aquib (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) ''*This seems like an eternity ago, now

7. Lists prepare one for orderly progress. As such, they are of limited use. Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

8. Invent Islamic gardening. Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you know. Someone already invented Islamic gardening.  I want one of those. Aquib (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

9. Start an article on Islamic gardening. Aquib (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already a stub, and there's work to be done.  Aquib (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Aquib american muslim! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

something lame from CBW 06:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you and thank you for your help! Aquib american muslim (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Hi Aquib,

Please provide a link to either your user or talk page in your signature, per the signature guidelines. It makes things much easier for bots and other tools which rely on a signature containing a link to a user page. It also makes it easier for humans to find your user and/or talk pages. Thanks. Graham 87 06:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests
Your request for arbitration is currently being declined by the arbitrators as being too premature for the Committee to handle. As you are new, you may not be aware that WP:ARBCOM is the last step in dispute resolution, and not the first. If you are not having any success in solving this dispute on the article's talk page, you should try Wikipedia's dispute resolution process first, including asking for a third opinion, asking for a request for comment or requesting informal mediation. If the situation is urgent&mdash;and I would suggest you try the avenues listed in WP:DR first as you may be referred back there&mdash; then you can bring the situation up at the Administrators' Noticeboard. The Arbitration Committee only handles cases that have either exhausted all avenues where the community is unable to resolve the dispute or requires urgent intervention in very limited circumstances (such as an administrator's account being compromised).

If you have any questions about dispute resolution, please drop me a note on my talk page. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks Aquib (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Al-Sharia.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Al-Sharia.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks Aquib (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a break
I suggest you take a break from Sharia and expand your wiki skills on other areas. Try to avoid burning out on one page. You're doing fine and you've come a long way. I'm going to suggest the same to User:Jayzames (talk).
 * J8079s (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your words of encouragement and you suggestion : ) Aquib (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe even spend some time helping out at muslimwiki.com 81.178.245.138 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your suggestion : ) Aquib (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Provide a link or article name
I appreciate your feedback about editing articles that contain hadith quotations. However, which article, specifically, are you talking about?

Neutron Jack (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help.
Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding usages
Hi, I noticed your recent edit to several articles adding the phrase "...The Islamic Prophet" in front of the name of Muhammad. Although that is allowed by the current wording of WP:MOSISLAM please note that this does not mean that the words are required and should be added. It means that when it is necessary to use the word "prophet" regarding Muhammad we need to clarify it as "...the Islamic prophet" in order to maintain NPOV. I won't revert your changes at this time, but please don't add the phrase unless it's actually necessary. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Doc, thanks for the ping. Please note the exact wording is not allowed but rather recommended.


 * Quoting:
 * The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad" — recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad" except when it is the first reference in an article in which case render it as "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad".


 * I am sure you will agree we should all follow wp:mos, which in this instance recommends to render the first reference as "the Islamic prophet, Muhammad". This should be good news for the folks that spend all their time out here deleting Islamic acronyms - now they have something a bit more challenging to brighten up their days!  Do you suppose Twinkle can handle this?  I haven't tried anything like that yet.


 * In addition, neutralizing the prophets honorifics can lead to confusion in articles which refer to more than one person by the name Muhammad. Something needs to be done about this as well.  I am certain you will agree the rules need to support the readability of the material, and not the other way around.


 * Regards,
 * Aquib (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you misunderstand the main point - the action (adding "the Islamic prophet") is to be undertaken when replacing less appropriate forms and honorifics, it is not to be added gratuitously. That would result in us adding the phrase to every article that mentions Muhammad which was never the intent of the policy. Your last point is correct though, when necessary to distinguish between two different persons named Muhammad, then that is indeed the correct usage. I understand your confusion because the current wording in MOSISLAM is confusing and vague; obviously it needs to be clarified in the policy. Thanks for your time and I hope this helps, Doc  Tropics  00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous reply. I will put some more thought into the core issue here. Aquib (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too. It's always a pleasure to deal with a courteous and educated editor, and it's obvious you are both. Happy editing, Doc  Tropics  02:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

good to see your still around
I assume you have read these but I' post them anyway for any one reading along
 * WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 April 2010
 * WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 discussions and cleanup plans
 * WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence
 * WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Recent evidence
 * User:Spacepotato/Examples of original research in Wikipedia
 * User:Spacepotato/Misuse of sources
 * a statistical analysis of Jaggeds edits: His claim of 1% may be true,in a way. Total edits divided by those that say things not in the source (that is direct violations of policy). If we eliminate "technical" edits that is "linking" "grammar" "re-arranging" the percentage becomes much higher. (If we are WP:LAWYERs the percentage could still be below 10%) However if we confine ourselves to science and the history of science and those "edits" that add content and apply all policies and the underlying principles of those policies the percentage could exceed 100 (in that the edits are "cut and pasted" by others).

All that said I assure you that I will not delete any thing "just because Jagged wrote it" J8079s (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi J, good to see you as well, although regrettable circumstances. I know my tone seems harsh, this situation has troubled me for some time as you know, but the page truncs seem to be taking things to a new level.  I can assure you there is no question in my mind as to how the situation must appear to those who have sifted through the ashes for months now.


 * I'll look at the numbers you have provided, thanks and regards Aquib (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've replied on my talk page. - EdoDodo  talk 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit
I have reverted your edit here; because;
 * 1st. You reverted it to a faulty edit by User:AllahLovesYou to say there are 2 denominations in islam. Which contradicts the article as the article includes sufi, ahmadiyya, ibadi.
 * 2nd. You changed spelling of Shia to Shi'a. Why would you do that? The majority of wikipedia articles uses Shia, as well as the main article heading itself, so why should it be different in the subsection? The other revert you did, i dont mind. Please assume good faith next time. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits are very unusual. The more I look at them the more concerned I get.


 * Yesterday, you deleted the name of Allah out of the Islam article and concealed it by doing a move of another image at the same time.


 * Aquib (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I replaced the Allah picture because a crescent is a more common symbol of islam, compared to Allah. But pictures are not a big deal anyway really. Please read Manual of Style (layout). Someone65 (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As you well know, some people would not agree with your opinion on whether Allah's name belongs in the Islam article. Your edit summary stated you were moving an image, not deleting an image.


 * Last night you moved - well I don't know - 20 or 30 articles into lost-and-found, and claimed to be acting under authority of the Jag RFC.


 * I am concerned.


 * Aquib (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam and violence
Hi Aquib,

Thanks for your reply about the above article. You've confirmed what I thought. Do you want to make the afd proposal? The article creator seems to have a bugbear about various religions and religious groups. I had been aware fo him because of the various articles he created around Jews and various anti-Jewish issues and hust looked at this one to see if Moslems got the same treatment. It appears that they do. What stood out for me was how the long-time secular Saddam Hussein's cynical use of Islam once he fell out with America got turned into an example of Islamic violence.--15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, it needs to be done but I'm not up to it at the moment. I just finished up a protracted discussion about allegations of terrorism in Tabligh Jamaat and I haven't had enough time to put into actually contributing to articles lately.  I will drop by and take a closer look.  Let's see how taggable the content actually is. If it's full of fabs and OR it might be relatively easy. Unfortunately, the citations appear tight.  Thanks Aquib (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me we might want to discuss a list of articles created by the user, rather than an individual article, what are your thoughts in this regard? Aquib (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Enid A. Haupt
Dravecky (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-Aquib (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually
Actually, 3 people agreed with the page moves and one as indifferent. Its best we contact the involved editors if you want to revert these page moves.Someone65 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like 1 of my supporters has had a change of mind Someone65 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Completing repair work on renaming Caliphate articles to Islam articles
undo undiscussed non-consensus page move from Dec 6 by Someone65 as discussed on 12/6/2010 and 1/10/2011. Aquib (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my user page. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My way of saying thanks for all your hard work. Aquib (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shalimar Gardens as an outstanding example of Mughal architecture
It is already in Category:Mughal gardens which has a parent of Category:Mughal architecture. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I am cleaning up a category, yes, I try and cleanup everything. In this case, I'm redoing a major category tree with over 500 categories and thousands of articles, so I am only fixing the articles that I notice have problems.  So, no, I'm not cleaning up those two categories.  Feel free to remove the articles from Category:Mughal architecture when the article is also in Category:Mughal gardens or in any other children categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there can be exceptions where some articles should be in multiple categories along one branch. However the number of cases where this occurs is rather small.  The problem is that once you say a particular article is that exception, then you also need to provide objective criteria to evaluate other articles against.  I'm not sure how exactly this would work.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And if every, example is notable as a garden they belong there. But that garden category is a specific part of Mughal architecture.  The be included in both, it needs to be established that these gardens are both notable for being a Mughal garden and over and above that provide some notable feature that would merit inclusion in the parent category.  The fact that being a unique garden is not that notable feature.  Look at buildings and gardens in general.  They are listed in the tree in several places.  By the type of architecture, where they are, the materials used to build them, their energy usage, when they were built and maybe by function.  And for the most part, virtually every building is unique.  But how many of those have an unique feature that defined the style of Architecture?  That would be a reason to consider adding to the parent category.  Being and outstanding example is not a reason.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Anne
Please see my argument for putting Anne back on the table Honoured Women In Islam--Imadjafar (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just finished adding a bit to Jochebed, I'll try to take a look at Anne this week. -Aquib (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone65's edits
Since replying to your complaint at ANI about Someone65's edits I have realised that my reconstruction of what he was up to was probably not quite right, although I still don't think his edit summaries were intended to be deceptive.

Originally I took Someone65's statement "all right I will allow elizabeth to stay" on the template talk page at its face value. But the context and his edit summaries would appear to indicate that he was confusing Elizabeth with Jochebed, and what he really meant to say was that he would allow Jochebed to go back into the template. When he added Elizabeth he was likely still confused about which lady he had agreed to be retained. After he realised his mistake he then corrected it by removing Elizabeth and adding Jochebed. Thus the removal of Elizabeth in this latter edit was probably intentional rather than inadvertent as I had originally supposed.

I put Elizabeth back into the template on the supposition that Someone65 had removed it in error. Nevertheless, I am not going to remove it again. I believe Someone65's demand that the women be omitted until sources have been provided is not reasonable. Unless an editor has reasonable grounds for believing unsourced statements to be erroneous (which I don't believe Someone65 does have in this case), standard Wikipedia procedure after asking them to be sourced is to let them stand until interested editors have been given sufficient time to locate and add the requested sources. David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications and the help with the template, David. Someone65's editing will have a long-term detrimental effect on the Islamic articles, and he may be damaging other articles as well. But I can't claim I didn't see this one coming; he's been attacking the links between the common prophetic traditions of the Quran and the Bible since December. -Aquib (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply Re: Deletion of article on Islamic metaphysics (per WP:Jagged_85_cleanup)
I guess they deleted that article outright. I know little about this; I was hoping to learn something about the subject. I have only been following the discussion upthread on the talk page for medieval Islamic science, they identfied the five pages that were blanked. By the person who blanked all five pages on Islamic science, philosophy, etc. under a ruling of some sort. allowing them to do so on the grounds that the primary contributor was misusing sources. I realize this Jagged guy did not help the case if he was the one who was adding a lot of false content to the article. But that is not grounds for deleting the whole article is it? Probably the same folks who go around trying to tag all interaction of Christianity and Judaism and science with the pseudoscience tag. They probably assume religious people are all ignorant creationists who didn't historically believe in the scientific method. But still, Islamic metaphysics? You trying to tell me there is no such thing? I don't believe it. (I'm being sarcastic) Yclept:Berr (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here is the discussion upthread I got my info from: "My other fear is, of course, once the article is deleted it will not be rebuilt. Deleting information is far, far, far easier than contributing. It takes months, if not years to write an article. It takes a second to delete it. The user in question (User:J8079s) seems to be going around deleting articles, and has made little effort of building articles. As examples: Islamic ethics, Islamic metaphysics, Physics in medieval Islam and Islamic economics in the world were deleted, and no effort was made to rebuild them (some of the deletions have since been reverted). I see that there is a pattern of deleting and leaving - not deleting and rebuilding. Thus, an article can very well be built from scratch in user space. But it shouldn't replace an entire article prematurely. Bless_sins 5 October 2010 (UTC)" Yclept:Berr (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to try to collect more information at the Jag discussion page. -Aquib (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ranting
Please stop the constant accusations of bad faith: ''restore last good version by Pjoef. Other editors falling down on WP:AGF, WP:Consensus, WP:BULLY, spurious and unreasonable objections, lack of specifics, abusing an RFC/U etc'' etc William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * These articles should not be used as hostages, and the editors who care about them should not be stiff-armed or jerked about on their leashes. It's a question of civility. Civility fosters the collaboration necessary to move the encyclopedia forward.


 * Your treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable. Is this how you weed out potential contributors with views other than your own towards the approach to the Jag cleanup? Swoop in on them like hawks? If we had more volunteers like Pjoef, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


 * Maybe you should be helping out on another portal. Personally, I hope to return to my interest in articles on the gardens of Islam... someday.


 * -Aquib (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You make much of your desire to contribute article content, but actually spend most of your time unprofitably on talk pages. I agree that the articles should not be used as hostages; but they aren't being so used; only you seem to have this odd attitude. I care about those articles; and I do wish you would stop trying to stiff-arm me; as for the leashes stuff: what are you on about? As for Pj: I have no idea what you are talking about? Please cease this random insult-flinging William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are saying you honestly have no idea what I am talking about. That is unfortunate, but it does explain a few things. -Aquib (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I have no idea why you think my "treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to concentrate on the content dispute for now, if that is possible. You have not yet seriously responded to my questions regarding my source for Tusi's use of a derivative, or my reference to the article on the 1977 Turing Prize as an explanation of dynamic functional algebra. I know the term dynamic functional algebra is debatable; in fact, that is my point. The source on Tusi, however, goes straight to the heart of the matter. -Aquib (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. In that case, the onus on you is to stop saying unjustified things like treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable, then I won't complain about you saying them. As to the lack of response: you are wrong: . Ruud has also pointed out your error: . I think you really need to step back a little, and think, and then realise that dynamic functional algebra doesn't exist as a term; that Jagged made it up; and that you don't have the relevant domain knowledge to even realise that it is meaningless. Google searches are no substitute for understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming from a background in information technology, it is easy for me to draw these inferences with regards to dynamic functional algebra. Looks like your criticism of the Tusi assertion is one side of a legitimate academic debate. I have my source, you have yours. -Aquib (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you didn't seem to have any problem drawing these inferences. What you haven't yet realised is that your inferences are wrong: you are supporting Jagged's invention of a meaningless term by googling refs, not by actually reading and understanding the refs. An IT background will not help you understand the maths William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't help noticing you prefer to discuss dynamic rather than Tusi. I believe the dynamic was in a heading on a bit of the Tusi if I am not mistaken and you follow me. Point being I may still have you on Tusi. That's actually quite an interesting factoid as well. -Aquib (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've descended to obfustication. The term dynamic functional algebra is meaningless. Jagged introduced it by not understanding the subject or his sources. If you're going to stop defending it, that would be great. If you could admit your error and apologise for the time you've wasted that would be even better William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't repeat the mistake of thinking you will get rid of me easily. -Aquib (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Mathematics in medieval Islam
Thank you so very much, Aquib. Unfortunately, I have been stopped before I could finish the review, but maybe one day I will. Cheers. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aquib, I replied to your most recent message suggesting you confer with Pjoef since he actually attempted to review and correct the statements made in the article. My preference of course would be for a RfC or AfC covering all the pages affected by the Jag cleanup, per my talk page reply:
 * I would more happily participate in a global process that allows us to suggest remedies that apply to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. From the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for Talk:Science in medieval Islam. Does anyone have a complete list?
 * Also note that the existence of a /  template,  used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict (to completely stub all pages on the subject until they are rewritten) obsolete and unnecessary.
 * Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion, not to past shenanigans. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (?? I'm not familiar with the correct forum) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went and outright deleted / stubbed some of the pages was a hit-and-run and I can't tell what his motives were. (me) Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks and best regards to you both. -Aquib (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam
Salaam, Aquib. Assuming that someone is actively working to rewrite the article, which seems to be the case, I don't mind the stubbing. So I'd say an RFC/U at this moment would be disruptive. I'd suggest that you wait for a couple of weeks, let the new article mature a bit, then start introducing any clean/useful parts from the Jagged version later. Now, for articles that have been stubbed a few weeks or months ago, but still remain with very little activity, you may want to start reintroducing/cleaning some parts from the Jagged version now. I'm sure other people will show up to help or disrupt such efforts, but it would be better than nothing.

In any case, at this moment I'm more worried about the "careless" editing of the Jagged Cleanup efforts. I've seen small parts of articles being deleted even though any careful editor would have rephrased. See, for one example,, which left a gap in the questions discussed, and should have been rephrased from the source cited. Also this which deleted the word Ijazah without any justification, and didn't even bother to cleanup the Jagged-like "fake citation". These edits showed up on my watch list, but I'm afraid it's being done to other articles too. I believe such careless and selective editing would possibly be useful as RFC/U material, and deserves a bit more attention.  Wiqi x talk  22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WaSalaam Wiqi, thanks for the note. I've also been getting other feedback regarding the advisability and usefulness of an RFC/U on this incident at Mathematics in medieval Islam. I'm going to call off this new RFC/U. But I am still concerned about the stubbings, moves and redirects. We don't really know how many have happened, so if they have happened, we don't know where they are. Some folks have been helpful in this regard, others either are not listening, don't know or won't say. Science in medieval Islam was stubbed around 6 months ago, and it is still stubbed.


 * So I'm going to focus on the problem with the Jag RFC/U and put together an appeal for the Arbitration Committee. I know there are problems with Jag's edits, but we need some limits, some oversight or at least visibility, to be sure reasonable care is taken in the cleanup.


 * Thanks for bringing the editing problems to my attention, please let me know if anything else comes up. I have a few good examples of my own as well.


 * -Aquib (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC request Parallel to your ArbCom request
Dear Aquib: Since you, Wiqi, pjoef et al. seem to agree that we need to get away from personalizing the discussion about individual editors' edits (unless they prevent everyone from broadening the issue, of course), I saw your note announcing the ArbCom request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and asking that future talk page discussion on the issue be posted there. Accordingly, I have posted a request for a new RfC parallel or to supersede the old Jagged RfC (the new RfC need not eliminate the old RfC since the issues are different now and not confined to one user, so I'm pretty this can proceed regardless of how ArbCom handles it.)

A Copy of My Request is located on Pjoef's page (I'd post it here too, but I already posted it on the Jagged 85 page here.

I also asked them how to start one. I'm unlikely to get much help on that page given what I say is the rationale for an new RfC, but I imagine it simply entails copying the bullet points made in that reply and posting them on the main RfC page using the template provided?

The problem is, I'd still need help canvassing the relevant Wiki Projects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, Mathematics, Philosophy) because their input is what is missing and desperately needed. In fact, I wouldn't know how to do that part, which is kind of crucial to avoid moving past the same-old, same-old debate.

Anyone know how / willing to canvass the relevant Wikiprojects if I go ahead with the RfC?

Keep in mind that the new RfC could factor into how ArbCom handles the issue (I don't know how, but positively I hope.) Yclept:Berr (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Yclept, my appeal to ArbCom will be to modify the Jag RFC/U, and I have the material for the initial appeal. It is coming along well although 500 words is a small space to word the initial appeal and I need to back it up with diffs. It is a holistic appeal, which would address many of the same areas yours probably will. Since I have been involved for a year, it will have a lot of material. If you turn up more useful information it could possibly feed into the ArbCom appeal, although it might cause some confusion among the community. Would you like to see a rough draft of the appeal? I can email it to you. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just let me know if ArbCom considers itself the proper forum to modify a pre-existing RFC, because my feeling (just a hunch) is that they would want to start a new RFC either user-based or issue-based (probably not both), or else keep the existing RFC with mission unchanged. And if that's the case it's easier to just propose one, isn't it? Can the relevant wikiprojects be canvassed by ArbCom? I'm not familiar with the exact scope of what they do. I've had a major work issue come up in Real Life that may take me back out of the discussion at least for awhile, so I may not see your reply. But I agree you guys know much more about what's going on with this issue, I'm just not sure if the current approach will work. Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Hi, I've removed your request because it blank. If you have something that you need ArbCom to look at, re-submit your request, but fill in the details. At minimum, they'd need to know who is involved and what the dispute concerns before they can consider helping you. You can use the preview button if you like to view the blank request and then fill in the details from there.  at the top should be replaced by the name of the case (for example, if you were taking me to ArbCom, it would be titled HJ Mitchell), In, one should be replaced with your username and the others with the usernames of the other people involved. If you need a hand, feel free to contact me or one of ArbCom's clerks. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've notified yourself, how sweet. I've removed the "WMC" account - clearly, WMC is going to say the same thing as me. If you really insist you can put it back William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)