User talk:Dev920/Archive2

Archive1

Please, leave me a message. I am happy to be help or be helped.

FAC: Jake G.
Thanks for letting me know about the fac, Im semi-active and sometimes I forget where and for what i commented. I have changed my decision to support but left a message also. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. - Tutmosis 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)
Thanks for your feeback on the the Stormfront article. The suggested expansion in particular is a really good suggestion that I don't think would have occured to me.

Although, I should point out that you mispelled the word "favor" as "favour". I swear-- you British types seem to have the worst typing skills when it comes to the English language. It gives me the urge to take your tea and dump it in a harbor.

lol, no no. I'm not really that much of an American yokel. But let me tell you, you haven't lived until you've heard a rural American high school English teacher lecture a foreign exchange student from the UK about her lack of mastery of the  English language. The class had to write a paper entitled "Why _____ is my favorite color". The teacher sat right there, in front of the whole class, and lectured the poor UK student for mispelling "favorite" and "color" throughout her entire paper, and then suggested the student be screened for dyslexia. Which, let me tell you, is so ironically sad, I don't even know where to start. Ahh, the American educational system.

Anyway, in your feedback you mentioned the current article suffers from a lack of citations. Part of that problem stems from an on-going edit war we're having, that you might want to comment. We have an editor who's deleting all the citations that link to the hate site itself. The concern is that linking to Stormfront will just inflate its Google pagerank, thereby causing Wikipedia to inadvertantly promote Stormfront-- which is something no one wants (except, I suppose, for the neo-nazis). Instead, the citations are being placed in hidden commments inside the wikicode for the page. I and several others have objected to this deletion of citations, on the ground that it just makes the references impossible for the average reader to find, and that if we don't hide citations for any other sources, we shouldn't hide stormfront's citations either.

Do you have an opinion on this edit war? Is the article better with the citations left hidden, or should we just go ahead and add them to the article like we do for every other article on Wikipedia?

--Alecmconroy 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think hiding the references in comments is deeply silly, as you may as well not have them for all the use they are to the casual reader. I can appreciate, however, that we do not want to artificially inflate a hate site's rankings on Google. Surely, though, it is very easy to simply reference urls without linking them? i.e. en.wikipedia.org? Would this not work? Dev920 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking it over. I don't know if Google would pick up on non-linked URLs or not.  My concern is that if we treat Stormfront differently than we treat any other websites, isn't Wikipedia essentially passing judgement on whether a referenced is "Good" or "Bad"?  I mean, I'm comfortable with me, a human being, saying that white supremacists are bad, but I tend to think Wikipedia should have as a "neutral" a point-of-view as possible on political issues.  Should we have a different set of rules for hate sites than we have for other sites? What do you think?  It's a complicated issue-- no one wants to help the Nazis, but I don't want to discriminate against them either --Alecmconroy 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Noisy article recording
Hi, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Is the file you uploaded the original recording? If so, it had a ton of noise, and it can't really be removed. When you try to filter noise like that, it does sound much clearer, but it leaves these eerie electronic sounding noise artifacts.

So here's some tips if you haven't already tried them:
 * Record like 5 to 10 seconds of silence before you begin speaking. This makes noise removal easier.
 * Put the microphone slightly in front of and to the side of your mouth. This reduces any hissing from sibilant sounds.
 * Reduce all environmental noise! This means going into the quietest part of your house, closing the door, and turning off everything you can. Get as far away from your computer as you can. Then just sit for a while and listen to see how quiet it is. If you hear anything... try to remove that source of noise!
 * Speak loud enough that you take advantage of the full range of your microphone (speak as loud as you can while still sounding natural, and without clipping the audio). This is partly why you want the microphone close to your mouth—to make your voice much louder than any ambient noise.

Usually it's not the microphone that's the problem... what kind of microphone do you have? Try some other ones to see if they have the same noise problem. I'm not an audio engineer, so these are just tricks I've picked up along the way. Hopefully they'll help. Good luck! ~MDD4696 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal
I'd like to support, but the writing is still choppy and vague in some areas. Never Mystic (tc) 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When you are ready to nominate the article at FAC again, I'd be glad to copy-edit it. Never Mystic (tc) 20:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be discouraged. It will pass eventually. =) Never Mystic (tc) 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still somewhat unfamiliar with the FAC process, so I'm uncertain whether you should nominate it now or at a later date. Perhaps you could ask the FAC director, Raul654? Never Mystic (tc) 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's your choice if he's failing to respond. Never Mystic (tc) 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a dispute over the renomination. Like I said before, I'm not entirely familiar with the FAC format, so I'm going to abstain from supporting until the issues are resolved. Never Mystic (tc) 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of WP:IAR before, but since Jimbo Wales cites it as policy, I'll overlook the writing and perhaps comment out parts that require improvement. I'm working on an actor's article too! Never Mystic (tc) 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat inconsistent in places and sometimes causal rather than professional. Never Mystic (tc) 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is meant by "coming of age" (see the respective header)? Never Mystic (tc) 01:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the headers are irritating, along with the text. I'm going ahead and copy-editing all the unusual portions. Remember that I'll be adding "comment out"'s. Never Mystic (tc) 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that Gyllenhaal's article has reached FA status, what are your next projects (if you don't mind me asking)? Never Mystic (tc) 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, I'm rewriting Anne Hathaway (actress) so that it can reach FA status and perhaps at a later date The Princess Diaries (film). I'm a photographer, so it would be nice to see something done with Principal photography too. Good luck to you! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Never Mystic (tc) 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

mediation request
I saw you're listed in the mediation cabal page, and now I'm requesting your help with a WP:EL disagreement over an actress. I think I'm dealing with a user (User:Ayashe and her sockpuppet (User:Poifect) in a revision war over Natalia Tena. The repeated adding of a 2nd fansite stopped for a while, and I thought the problem had gone away, but its back and I'm getting really sick of it.  What could you suggest?  Desertsky85451 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject South Park
I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project: I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison
 * Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
 * Merge/lengthen the many character articles
 * Improve the South Park main page

Boxing stubs
HI yes sorry I thought I tred using the sports bio template first but it didn't work. Nice stubs though. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they will be researched later --Francesco Franco 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)I was amazed some of them didn't exist yet. I would like them to be like Harry Mallin or really like Leon Moreaux as a sports bio that I have done. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this Raul fellow needs some medical attention
--Francesco Franco 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Your CSS
Have you cleared your cache? Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5. — Mets 501 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&curid=6037917&diff=80491718&oldid=80436339 all wonderful edits on Islam page. ] --- ابراهيم 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So sweet of you. Thank for changing my User page. :) :) --- ابراهيم 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Userproject:Conservatives
I saw your page User:Dev920/Userproject:Conservatives. You may well find some problems with this project as it is proposed. Wikipedians have tended to look with extreme disfavour on any attempt at "organised POV pushing". Now I know you don't want to do this, but a project which seeks to find only those users who have a particular point of view (ie supporters of the Conservative Party) is inevitably going to come under suspicion. If, however, you were to make a minor amendment and seek to find all Wikipedians who are interested in improving articles about the Conservative Party regardless of their own POV, then no-one could have any objection. For instance I am not a Conservative, and yet I contributed heavily to Margaret Thatcher and wrote almost all of Reginald Maudling, which are featured articles. Fys. Ta fys aym. 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the POV suspicions that are likely to fly if this idea gets off the ground. However, I think I have made it very obvious on the page that I am a Wikipedian first and a Conservative second and that any possible POV that may be inadvertently added to an article would be immediately ironed out by any peer review or GA or FA nomination. I therefore am not terribly worried, and any editor who thinks such a thing has not read my aims and is assuming bad faith. If you would be willing to act as a NPOV checker for any articles the project works on, I would be delighted to have you on board. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I still have concerns, and I have raised them on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Feel free to comment. Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What's this bronze star stuff?
HA!! So the article made it through after all the nonsense, eh? Congratulations, kid!! It is NOT an easy process, I can tell you. Keep up the good work.--Francesco Franco 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay Marrages (and no questions asked...)
U asked why i oppose Gay marrages, i oppose them for the following reasons:
 * Unnatural-as children cannot be produced (just imagen if everybody was gay)
 * An embarrisment for those who know them (gay people often don't know how much of an embarrisment they are to everybody elso)
 * Encorages homosexuality-i think it should be tolerated but certainly not encoraged
 * A step too far-i dont have a problem with homosexuality-and some form of legal thing (i.e. possibly civil partnerships)-but i draw the line at marrage...--Boris Johnson VC 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam
You have significantly improved the article. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 17:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Critical reviews
Were there any critical reviews you found essential to bringing Gyllenhaal's article to FA status (ones that described his acting-style, etc.)? If so, please list one or two on my talk page. Thanks! Never Mystic (tc) 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to see if there're any useful reviews for Anne Hathaway that I could include in her article. Never Mystic (tc) 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your help would be fantastic, of course! Thank you for the links. If you think any of the writing is somewhat odd, go ahead and change it. If you're unsure of what to do, comment it out and I'll try to rearrange it accordingly. Again, thanks! You're a very nice person. Never Mystic (tc) 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay! Good luck with your work. Never Mystic (tc) 20:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham
Hi. I read that you believed I had violated the 3RR. If that is so I'm happy to receive a punishment. However I would like to explain.
 * I edited the page, removing a section. This was not a revert but a standard edit.
 * Ernham revert 1:
 * Mark83 revert 1:
 * Ernham revert 2:
 * Mark83 revert 2:
 * Ernham revert 3:
 * Mark83 revert 3:
 * User warned he will break 3RR by reverting again at 00:50, 13 October 2006
 * Ernham revert 4:

If you disagree that the first does not qualify as a revert, then yes that means four reverts and a violation. However as can be plainly seen from these diffs Ernham reverted four times. At the third revert I warned him, he went ahead and reverted. I did not follow. This shows I was aware of the 3RR and did not intend to break it. Ernham's excuse is that he was reverting a vandal - that is wholly unacceptable, I am happy to be told I am wrong but I have built quite a good reputation on Wikipedia and will not accept being called a vandal when there is no cause to. Thank you for your time. Mark83 18:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments at the admin noticeboard. No I don't think you "recklessly maligned" my name. However how would you feel about me striking this edit as follows:
 * I think it's extremely unfair to claim it's ok to block someone even if they are in the right ( as this Mark person did break 3RR and Ernham didn't ) on the basis that they can't keep their temper. How is that in any way in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia? If what is written above is the full story, Mark should have been blocked and Ernham warned about incivility, then blocked if he persisted. The admins shouldn't be "siding" with anyone: they should be doing what their role requires of them.
 * I don't see a need to strike "Mark should have been blocked and Ernham warned about incivility" as its preceded by "If what is written above is the full story". And sorry for taking up more of your time! Mark83 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. Thanks again. Mark83 19:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first 2 reverts were vandalism. Your first edit is a revert. The adminstrator in the page you opened to try and slander me went as far as to explain this explicitly, so I'm puzzled(well, sans the hyperbolic sarcasm, I'm not really puzzled; I know exactly why you do it, my little innocent "good" wikipedian, as do you.) why you continue to feign ignorance of such a things, something you have a bit of habbit of doing.

"Secondly, all editors need to remember, reverts are reverts, even when they contain other edits." -- from admin Rich on the page you created, a day before you were prostrating your "it's just a regular edit" nonsense for someone you have appeared to pull the wool over their eyes.

These are the facts, whether you accept them is your own issue. I tire of your games and constant attempts to smear me.Ernham 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazing! He's managed to turn a user who was sympathetic into another recipient of abuse. Sorry for you having to play host above. Mark83 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it was brought to your attention, but just in case you didn't know already, there is an RFC for Ernham currently open. Please feel free to contribute to it if you like. Regards, Ramdrake 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of my page Bereishit (parsha). I appreciate all the work that you put into the enterprise. --Dauster 11:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support
My guess that the only thing you cannot do is to become a Trustee of the Charity (Wikimedia Educational Resources)!!! Gordo 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, slow progress. Are you on the UK Mailing List? There has been a lot of work behind the scenes, and at least two people from the UK Trustees went to Frankfurt recently. Gordo 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l Gordo 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AustinNichols.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:AustinNichols.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC
Just to remind you that you need at least one other person to back up an RFC before it can be "official", so to speak. – Chacor 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertising proposals in your signature
Hi there. I've just realised something about the way you are advertising the "small talk page templates" proposal in your signature, and that is the way you are putting a link directly to the page. This will, in future, mess up any analysis someone might try to do by using "what links here". If you look at "what links here" for the proposal page you will see that it links to 50-100 pages, including (for example) Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI. ie. anywhere you left a talk page comment. It's not as bad as I feared, as I was expecting to see hundreds of talk page links, but I think a better way to do this in future is to create a redirect to the proposal you want to advertise (when it is appropriate to advertise a proposal in the first place), and then use that redirect in your signature. That way the "advertising links" can be kept separate from the links where people are referring to the page in actual talk page conversation. This might not be stated anywhere explicitly, but I hope you'll agree that this makes sense. Carcharoth 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Mini Talkpage Template/Check this out and the associated page for what I mean. You could now replace the link in your signature as check out this proposal. Carcharoth 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And now look at the respective what links here links: and . Specifically, the links via the redirect appear grouped together at the end (after a few weeks, the index is updated and the redirect appears in its correct place in the order of 'what links here' links). Carcharoth 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. Carcharoth 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous proposal
Ah. I just read this. I wondered what had happened to your previous proposal. For what it is worth WikiProject_Politics exists, and a WikiProject British politics might work. Anyway, good luck with getting the small template talkpage stuff implemented. Carcharoth 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bereishit FAC
To reply to your comments on my talk page regarding the Bereishit FAC nom: The amount of time it was left on the FAC before being archived (4 days, 13 hours, and 8 minutes; when I looked at it that got rounded to 5 days) is not unusually short. 5 days is the standard amount of time I leave something on the FAC before archiving or promoting it. Typically, if after 5 days a nomination has multiple opposes and not a single support (which was the case here), I'll remove it. That was the case here. This is not intended to be a slight at you; however, the page tends to grow very quickly and it's not the place to be doing large rewrites of articles. Failing a FAC nomination is not the end of the world. I suggest that you review the feedback you got, make the changes suggested, and then renominate the article.

As to the allegations you have made here that I'm ignoring you - that's nonsense. I get a great many comments on my talk page every day, and I do not have the time, energy, or inclination to reply to each of them. Futhermore, I've been particularly busy in real life as of late considering that I've got a major international conference to prepare an exhibit for due next week, and a phd thesis proposal due a month after that. However, with that said, your second comment on the matter indicated you really did want a reply, and I have been tardy in giving you one, so for that I apologize. Raul654 02:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AustinNichols.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:AustinNichols.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --– Quadell (talk) (random) 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar help...
Unfortunatly I am not a graphic designer. I am sure you will find one - good luck!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. Have noticed your post on Piotrus' talk page. I am no graphic designer, but I like to dabble, so I have dabbled twice. Take a look: proposal one and proposal two. If you like them, use them. If you don't like them, delete them. I just had a little free time :) cheers. --Ouro 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I did okay placing the proposal here... I think... --Ouro 13:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the red and violet areas should be wider? In a few minutes I'll upload another version so you can see if that's what you meant. I have tried to make it that the striped areas were of equal height, the 'pointy' nature of a barnstar kind of discourages the topmost and bottommost strips. A few minutes, please... --Ouro 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, try the image now (refresh your cache with F5 or whatever if it doesn't show up immediately). I've made the red and violet stripes wider now, how's that? Actually a barnstar with a flag on top never came to my mind; but I agree it'd be strange, I think this design keeps with a certain LGBT spirit... anyway, check it out now. --Ouro 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem :) try it now. It does look better, you were right, however the details of the barnstar have slowly begun to fade away. If you wish me to further alter it, do not hesitate to write, really. Cheers. --Ouro 20:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help, hope it passes! Have a good day. --Ouro 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive
Salam. Thanks for your attention and attempt Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I'll send some email to former wikipedians who aren't active now. Also I can introduce some reliable sources.--Sa.vakilian 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whould you please tell me how I can recieve "Weekly Delivery"?--Sa.vakilian 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD
"COMMENT: Adding "strong" to your vote is utterly meaningless and does not add anything to the debate. Please stop it."

I couldn't possibly agree more. Theres too much Strongest possible speedy keep etc etc as it is...Thanks --Amists 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, Prophesy and Undiscussed Edits
I know you made those edits in good faith, but the issue had been discussed in depth, and 3 out of 4 editors who bothered to add to the discussion agreed to keep the entry as was. To then, without discussion go and make very similar (and some exactly similar) changes undermines the whole process. It's also insulting to people who bothered to take the time to explain the position on the talk page. The editor who made the change used an explicitly POV argument--i don't think he's a prophet so therefore we can't call him that--to back one change and agreed to revert the other. Can you explain how "scripture" isn't accurate enough? True they are revelations, but the very idea of calling it scripture, which is entirely accurate from an academic perspective BTW, is not just a matter of accuracy but a matter of comparative accuracy. Sure the Qu'ran isn't identical to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Vedas, Buddhist sutras, etc. etc. ... but none of them are identical to each other yet all are scripture because of their status vis-a-vis their respective religions. Describing any of them as scripture is a matter of comparison. It is helpful to readers, who if they read on will undoubtedly find out that the Qu'ran is both a series of verses and supposedly a series of revelations. This discussion should take place on the Islam talk page.PelleSmith 13:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I've already voted here on Oct. 30.  I'd vote again but I'm pretty sure that's against policy.  Best.PelleSmith 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the changes the way they are now. Youre right collection of verses sound a little funny. Ill think about the other stuff maybe give a vote.Opiner 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam
I think this section is too large and given undue weight in the article. The "Political and religous extremism" and "Criticism of Islam" could be very easily merged and shortened. BhaiSaab talk 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also Islamophobia should be made smaller as well - it's not like every non-Muslim is Islamophobic. We should expand the "History" and "Contemporary Islam" sections. BhaiSaab talk 20:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which sections complement each other? BhaiSaab talk 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome Dev920. I think your deserve a award for your effort related to Islam article. You try to work there as neutral person which I really appreciate. I am not interested in voting for some actor. I do not mostly think them very good people. :(. Plese tell me if something else I could do for you? --- ابراهيم 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to work on Islam article In-sha-Allah (depending no free time available, which is very less these days) and waiting to vote for supporting you to be a admin one day (soon). --- ابراهيم 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you made the Criticism section too long. No other major religion's article has any equivalent - Judaism doesn't seem to even have one. BhaiSaab talk 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Israel doesn't keep to itself. The length of the section falls under "undue weight" in WP:NPOV. BhaiSaab talk 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, because the nation holds nearly half the Jewish population. Iraq, on the other hand, holds nowhere near half the population of Muslims. BhaiSaab talk 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would being non-democratic be inherently evil? Since when is a dislike of Israel anti-Semitism? That's weak. Seems I hit a sensitive string - I don't mean any offense. BhaiSaab talk 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be personally offended by my comments. Are you Jewish? BhaiSaab talk 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will never accept that anti-Zionism is the same thing as anti-Semitism. I have to go now, but I will continue this discussion later. BhaiSaab talk 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay your logic follows, but I still think there should be some theological criticism in that article. Otherwise, it's not fair. BhaiSaab talk 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is about being fair. No religion is above criticism. BhaiSaab talk 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then Islam should do the same thing. BhaiSaab talk 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We will see. BhaiSaab talk 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Islam
Salam.

I thank you for your attention to this issue but there isn't consensus about this change.--Sa.vakilian 17:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but I think you make a mistake. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shi'a Guild is something and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shi'a Islam is something else. Please look at thisWikipedia talk:WikiProject Shi'a Islam. Also I think redirecting and merging are completely different.--Sa.vakilian 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My viewpoint a little different. I've never work on X view of Y article(e.g. Shi'a view of Ali) I always work on the main article, but also disagree with merging them in the main articles. Because it makes a lot of trouble. I work in wikiproject Islam more then Wikiproject Shi'a. I made "To do list", but also disagree with merging one wikiproject in another. Becase I think this may cause in sectarian editorial war. I mean when I want to introduce an article which a Sunni may not like it, I write it i Shi'a wikiproject. If you find a way to avoid this problem, I won't disagree with you.--Sa.vakilian 09:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Question: I find you eager to work on articles related to Islam. Whould you please tell me how much you familiar with it. For example: Do you read Qur'an? Do you have any believer Muslim friend? I don't want to prevent your participation. Even I'm happy to see your eagerness. But I ask these questions because we have some problems with somebody who become familiar with Islam through media. I mean what Edward Said wrote about 20 years ago:--Sa.vakilian 10:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. I advise you reading this . You can have a glance through this site. Also I put a comment about structure of the article in talk:Islam. I can help you with your questions about Islam.--Sa.vakilian 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. In the case of WP:Shi'a Islam, I don't disagree with it but let Striver do it. Because he is familiar wuth it more and all of Shi'a wikipedian know him and accept his decision.--Sa.vakilian 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't mean you at all. it was a misunderstanding. I apologize--Aminz 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dev, there are definitely good criticisms of islam, sure, that is already included in criticism of islam article, we can link it from the main article. But my point is that just because a religion has been criticized a lot, we should not add a criticism of that religion section to that article. Either all religon articles should have that section or neither. --Aminz 07:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

re. Vandal
Hi. I have blocked 84.146.219.191 and 84.146.219.127 for a week, as being clearly the same vandal. Please report if the vandalism to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild continues from similar IPs, it might become necessary to block an IP range. Best regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can also semi-protect the page if the attacks continue.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
About the LGBT Barnstar debate? Jeffpw 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking somebody feels threatened by a LGBT Barnstar. I'm thinking that somebody has an agenda. I'm thinking I am about to lose my assumption of good faith. Jeffpw 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam criticism
Dev, first of all I hope you're not jumping to the wrong conclusions. I am explicitly PRO criticism pages in general, including Islam's, as I have repeatedly stated. I don't like the insinuation that I would have it removed--I say "insinuation" because you defend its existence in a response to my comment. The current rendition of the section, is much better than the one that stood for a long time, and it was the latter to which I was refering. That version contained said ambigious contextualiztion of presenting common "secular" criticisms of Islam. By the way you misquoted me. I never said anything about modern "hysteria". I only mentioned the contemporary "fervor" of criticizing Islam. Such a fervor may be justified by circumstances created by people or groups acting at least in the name of Islam, and I do not dispute that, but the fact remains that when we talk about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. we are talking about traditions of practice and belief that have existed for thousand(s) of years. What we shouldn't get seduced by is some idea that Islam has produced more to be criticized for, just because there is an overwhelming amount of criticism going around in the last few decades. Here adequate contextualization is necessary. Also can you please address the following point:
 * It is my opinion that there is a discrepency in how Islam, Christianity, and now per your example Judaism are treated on Wikipedia vis-a-vis "criticism". As I stated on the talk page, Christianity gets the Protestant treatment (theology and belief), now as you have exemplified quite well by linking to Judaism, Judaism gets the historical treatment (tradition), and Islam gets the unfortnate instrumental treatment (practice).  So being critical of Christianity means being critical of theology, being critical of Judaism means being critical of history, and being critical of Islam means being critical of what Muslims are said to do or more specifically what it is claimed "Islam" causes in the world--terrorism, sexism, etc.  Wikipedia has a responsibility not only to produce individual articles that are factual and comprehensive, but to deal with categories in a balanced manner.  What do you think about this?  Any of these broad categories, the theological, the historical and the instrumental could be applied to any one of those three religions, and that has been done at different historical points.  How do we deal with this?  What is balance in the way we present religions as religions?  How do we balance the directions of popular fervor and the encyclopedic endevour?PelleSmith 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Regarding my "insinuations" that you would remove the criticism section and claim "modern hysteria" as a reason - my comments were not aimed at you."
 * Thanks and noted.
 * "There is an argument to be made, I feel, that many of these so-called fundementalists are actually, in their own bizarre way, trying to be "good" Muslims. Whether this is authentic Islam or not is debatable, but it is A form of Islam."
 * I agree with you. I also don't believe in the idea that there is anything like an authentic Islam, an authentic Christianity, etc. We could all rattle off instances, both contemporary and historical, where people acting in what they believed to be good faith as memebers of a particalar religious group ended up perpetrating violence and other undesirable things.  These people thought they were very religious, and who are we to say there weren't?  The danger isn't in trying to pin down an authentic Islam, but in our attempts at being balanced in presenting Islam historically, and comparatively.  As another editor pointed out as well, people need to understand the difference between the mainline and the fringe.  My original problem with the old version of the criticisms is that they presented criticisms of specific aspects of Islam as if they were directed towards the religion in its most common elements.  Now some of the critics may themselves want it to be seen that way, but calling a critique of extremist terrorism a critique of Islam, is dubious.  It is a critique of a groups of people, who may validly call themselves Muslims, but it isn't a critique of mainline Islamic belief and behavior (keep in mind that a minority of Muslims are even Arab), or Islam as some kind of transcendent category.  Also, maybe these groups quote strongly from the Qu'ran, and relate their behavior and objectives persuaseively to elements of their religion, but that doesn't make them mainline either, because anyone can do that.  That is where the issue becomes confusing.  What will readers, especially uneducated readers, take from such criticisms?  Will they believe that they are criticisms of the form of Islam pracitced by most?  Will they believe that they are critisms of something inherent in Islam as opposed to a certain advantageous exegesis of the texts?  This is why I emphasize context so much.  Make it explicit what the criticism deals with, even if the critic wants you to think its more general.  I think we agree mostly.
 * "The criticism section as it stands was created by me as a condensed version of the historical and modern criticisms found in Criticism of Islam - I thus have no real opinion on whether such criticism should be theological, historical, or practical in nature. What would you yourself suggest?"
 * Personally I would seperate criticism under subcategories, but that gets messy. If I had a neat way of implementing it I would suggest it.  Then, however, I would make sure that the subcategories were all represented in at least each of the major world religions.  If there is a larger amount of political/instrumental criticism, or "contemporary" criticism for one religion then this would be born out, but a good faith effort would be made explicit that each religion entry is presenting similar forms of criticism.  Something like that. Thanks for your response by the way, and thanks also for taking the time and effort to improve the Islam entry.  I hope you are not getting discouraged.PelleSmith 22:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: referencing drive
Well, seeing as a typical referencing drive should be a week (Spacecraft Propulsion has been running for well over a week), I will replace it next time there's an eligible candidate. According to current criteria, in order for a collaboration to qualify, it needs at least three people to endorse within a period of seven days. Though maybe I'll do it sooner since I'm pretty much desperate. ;) ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AustinNicholsCasanovapremiere2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AustinNicholsCasanovapremiere2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Left?
I've been far too busy lately. You have no idea. I'll get back to editing that article, but I won't be entirely free until Christmas. Never Mystic (tc) 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal tags
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia! Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as,  ,  ,  ). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the  tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. BhaiSaab talk 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry
I am really sorry if I irritated you (you wrote:I find it bloody irritating when people add random sections to an article I'm attempting to improve) I just added stuff, which to the best of my knowledge, is very relavent to Islam and generally how Muslims act. I think everybody in the world has a right to know the customs with which Muslim children are brought up with, but unfortunately, we only hear the bad news like egyptians teach their children to hate Jews etc., but we never tell the things which they perform as part of the religion and also as part of the Ummah without any difference. Cheers!  TruthSpreader Talk 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

humm... maybe I should post this on the Talk:Islam page instead of here, but I came to your talk page to ask about this particular issue and so rather than starting a new section I'll simply reply here. I am much more familiar with the discussion structure of online forums than I am here on wikipedia, so if I am committing some sort of faux paux with this reply then I invite either one of you to start a section on my talk page and tell me about it. Dev920, my opinion is that you are falling too far twords the deletionism view point in this particular instance. I am not particularly invested in  TruthSpreader 's view that there must be a customs sub-section in the Islam article, but I don't believe that it should be deleted out of had either. Perhaps I can offer to be a mediator between the two views? --Ohms law 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

so, now i'm a "noob"?
I now note you have been an editor for only a week: I suggest you familarise yourself with Wikipedia before insisting that people are deletionists, that they must discuss every deletion but not inclusion on the talkpage, and offer to mediate between people who are not arguing. I find your attitute to be less than constructive, and your assumption that I haven't familiarised myself with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia to be condisending. I suppose that you haven't started an argument with your bahavior today on the Islam page? There is some problem with User:truthspreader and my attitude, but your attitude is perfectly acceptable? based solely on the behavior that I have whitnessed from you today, you are hardly a proponent of any sort of Every TREE in SIBERIA philosophy. I can claim to be whatever I wish to claim to be, but it's the actions that I take that lend meaning to such claims. In my view, you are leaning much more twords deletionism than inclusionism to the moment. --Ohms law 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for confirming how you view me. I will not get in your way, and I'll ask you not to get in my way. Thank you. --Ohms law 15:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Projects
Ill fix it right away. Thanks for the message. --Striver 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Guild Merger
I've just been a little busy. I'll probably do the merger tomorrow night or on Saturday. BhaiSaab talk 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)